Illegal Icons.

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

holdencaulfield

Guest
I had a question. I understand that Icons of Christ are accurate and allowed to be used, since He was and is a human, however are Icons of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit allowed. I can’t find anything that says they are, however I often see images of the Holy Blessed Trinity portraying the Father as and old man with a beard and the Holy Spirit as a dove.
 
God became man. If God could see fit to become incarnate, then a physical portrayal of God is not a bad thing, so long as the image is understood to merely represent God.

I think the problem you’re having is separating Christ from the other Persons of the Trinity.

At any rate, in Christian culture, there is no concern that the image will be seen as anything but symbolic. This wasn’t always the case, however. I think that in the East, pagans used to blur the line between image and the god a lot more, so that icons scandalized people more. That’s why there was a big argument over it. But, it was eventually decided in favour of the iconophiles. God can be depicted physically, so long as nobody confuses the physical depiction with the actual thing it represents.
 
HOPEFUL_IN_UK said:
God became man. If God could see fit to become incarnate, then a physical portrayal of God is not a bad thing, so long as the image is understood to merely represent God.
Click to expand...
Well yes of course however God the Father did not become man.
At any rate, in Christian culture, there is no concern that the image will be seen as anything but symbolic. This wasn’t always the case, however. I think that in the East, pagans used to blur the line between image and the god a lot more, so that icons scandalized people more. That’s why there was a big argument over it. But, it was eventually decided in favour of the iconophiles. God can be depicted physically, so long as nobody confuses the physical depiction with the actual thing it represents.
Click to expand...
Well yes I understand that images of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are just representations of them and are not meant to be accurate as we do not know what either of them look like nor could we, however apparently the Eastern Orthodox Church condemns Icons of the two. Images of God
 
God the Father is depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel…

Doves and other images are routinely used to depict the Holy Spirit.
 
Yes, of course however the Orthodox make the argument that since the images are not theologically correct, they cannot be used?
 
Holdencaulfield,
As far as I understand yes some Orthodox condemn icons of God the Father though I’ve seen some icons that break this rule (depending on who you ask, this can be ‘theologically incorrect’, though).

In the form of a white-haired old man is not the only way God is depicted; medieval artists sometimes depicted the Trinity as three identical-looking men sitting on one throne or in a more bizarre fashion, as a man with three faces (!!) or in the form that is more familiar to us.

Interesting to note that some early depictions of the Father has him resembling Jesus (perhaps based on St. Paul’s words that Christ is the image of the invisible God), while later images show Him in the familiar ‘old man’ form (based on Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of Days).
 
chrisb said:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ~ John 14:9
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding this. God the Son has become man, however God the Father has not nor has God the Holy Spirit. When Christ said that He meant that they have seen God, however they have not seen God the Father, only God the Son. To say that God the Father became man is the heresy of Modalism.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I think you are misunderstanding this. God the Son has become man, however God the Father has not nor has God the Holy Spirit. When Christ said that He meant that they have seen God, however they have not seen God the Father, only God the Son. To say that God the Father became man is the heresy of Modalism.
Click to expand...
I would humbly disagree. The question that needs to be asked is ‘what of the Godhead wasn’t present in the Incarnation’?

It is true that Modalism is a heresy but so is Tri-Theism… ultimately God is One and in that unity ‘all’ three persons of the Trinity are ‘equally’ God. If one person of the Holy Trinity can be represented then all can for all are One.
 
chrisb said:
I would humbly disagree. The question that needs to be asked is ‘what of the Godhead wasn’t present in the Incarnation’?

It is true that Modalism is a heresy but so is Tri-Theism… ultimately God is One and in that unity ‘all’ three persons of the Trinity are ‘equally’ God. If one person of the Holy Trinity can be represented then all can for all are One.
Click to expand...
That is quite true. However my only point was that we cannot say that God the Father was not made man. That would be Modalism. Nor can we say that the fullness of God was not man.
 
Well I would agree that the Icons are Theologically unsound, however what are you going to do? Paint over all of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top