Images of the Father on EWTN?

[jbm0117]

I have notice on the mass from EWTN they have a stained glass images of the father as an old man with a gray beard. How is this allowed if we have in idea of what God looks like.

 

[LoyalViews]

In the Sistine Chapel, Michaelangelo painted a picture of God, like the stained glass window on EWTN. It represents the trinity, really. It just represents him, because remember God is pure spirit!

 

[John_Lazarus]

I think it’s just symbolism. No one knows what Adam looked like, either, but that didn’t stop Michelangelo from including him (with the Father) in the Sistine Chapel. But Michelangelo didn’t paint Adam and God to say, “This is what they really look like”, but to portray artistically the moment of the Creation of Man.

I doubt that pictures of Jesus created in the west are meant to prove that Jesus had blue eyes, or always wore a white alb-like robe with a red cloak over one shoulder. Or was crucified on an ornate filagreed baroque cross. Or crucified with a loincloth to protect His modesty. They are just artistic conventions.

The importance here is the subject of the pictures, not necessarily the image details. A stained-glass image of the Father is just meant to draw your attention to the Father – the same way a Cross reminds you of the Son and a dove recalls the Spirit.

 

[jbm0117]

This is probably more common than I think, but God, the father did not take on human form.

In my opinion to depict him in human for in incorrect. We do not have the capacity to envision God.

To the above post about Christ with blue eyes. I do not have a problem as Christ’s image is changed to the population, Africa = black , Japan = Asian. He probably look like someone from Palestine.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

The truth is that pictures of God the Father that we see are not accurate. Only Jesus became man and God the father is in the form of a spirit. I don’t have a problem with artist painting stuff like that but people just need to remember that it is not accurate.

 

[MeekandHumble]

This is probably more common than I think, but God, the father did not take on human form.

In my opinion to depict him in human for in incorrect. We do not have the capacity to envision God.

To the above post about Christ with blue eyes. I do not have a problem as Christ’s image is changed to the population, Africa = black , Japan = Asian. He probably look like someone from Palestine.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

John 14:8,9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 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?

Who is “out” image/“our” likeness? Just a question.

 

[John_Lazarus]

The truth is that pictures of God the Father that we see are not accurate. Only Jesus became man and God the father is in the form of a spirit. I don’t have a problem with artist painting stuff like that but people just need to remember that it is not accurate.

Exactly my point. I think religious art is not meant to depict what a saint, angel, or Member of the Godhead looks like, like a photograph, but just to represent them in a visual or symbolic way, for purposes of allegory, teaching, devotion, etc. The difficulty arises when you have a Being that has no corporeal form, such as the Father or the Spirit, which is why the Former is often represented either as a bearded robed man, or possibly hand(s) coming from a cloud; and the Latter, a dove, tongue of flame, or ray of light issuing from a cloud.

I remember reading another thread about Eastern icons: how there are fairly strict rules about the representation of saints, Our Lord and His Mother, etc, and how they are meant to be representations, not portraits.

 

[MeekandHumble]

Exactly my point. I think religious art is not meant to depict what a saint, angel, or Member of the Godhead looks like, like a photograph, but just to represent them in a visual or symbolic way, for purposes of allegory, teaching, devotion, etc. The difficulty arises when you have a Being that has no corporeal form, such as the Father or the Spirit, which is why the Former is often represented either as a bearded robed man, or possibly hand(s) coming from a cloud; and the Latter, a dove, tongue of flame, or ray of light issuing from a cloud.

I remember reading another thread about Eastern icons: how there are fairly strict rules about the representation of saints, Our Lord and His Mother, etc, and how they are meant to be representations, not portraits.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

John 14:8,9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 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?

Who is “out” image/“our” likeness? Just a question.

 

[JVD]

I have notice on the mass from EWTN they have a stained glass images of the father as an old man with a gray beard. How is this allowed if we have in idea of what God looks like.

It’s an amazing dichotomy to try to place almighty God on a fragile two dimensional “canvas” of glass in the depiction of an aged and wise man is it not?

Yet God took no exception at all to man inking His Eternal Word using the pagan language of the Greeks on the same substances used to hang the Pascal Lamb of God on a tree (e.g. paper and vellum.
) after man quite nearly skinned Him alive with flails on the eve of the pascal feast.

I think if the Living Word of God can suffer man in so many ways that His Father can also probably suffer our fragile human attempts to honor Him.

James

 

[patrick457]

I think it’s just symbolism. No one knows what Adam looked like, either, but that didn’t stop Michelangelo from including him (with the Father) in the Sistine Chapel. But Michelangelo didn’t paint Adam and God to say, “This is what they really look like”, but to portray artistically the moment of the Creation of Man.

I doubt that pictures of Jesus created in the west are meant to prove that Jesus had blue eyes, or always wore a white alb-like robe with a red cloak over one shoulder. Or was crucified on an ornate filagreed baroque cross. Or crucified with a loincloth to protect His modesty. They are just artistic conventions.

Correct. Just because there are, you know, pictures of Jesus that make it look like He was Mr. Handsome with flowing blonde hair, flawless skin and spotlessly clean clothes that looked like they were fresh from the laundry does not automatically mean He actually looked like that. Or just because the Holy Spirit is often depicted as a dove does not mean He actually looks like some type of bird.

Personally, I tend to think that the common depiction of the Father as a man with white hair and beard comes from:

“As I was watching, thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat.
His clothing as snow was white,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was flames of fire, its wheels burning fire.
A river of fire was flowing and and came forth from before Him;
A thousand thousands were ministering to Him,
And ten thousand times ten thousand were standing before Him.
The judgment sat, and the books were opened.”

Now, the “Ancient of Days=Father” identification became more predominant in the West, while in the East, the identification of the ‘Ancient of Days’ with Christ became more common (though there were apparently also images of the Father-as-‘Ancient of Days’): which is why we have icons of Jesus also looking like ‘an old man’.

Of course, it is impossible to depict the Father because He is pure spirit. Which is why aside from artworks showing Him as the Ancient of Days, we also have ones which show Him as a carbon-copy of Jesus (this is a method that many early artists often employed for OT scenes featuring God: since we can’t show the Father, let’s just show the Logos), a hand (another ancient convention - the little we have of ancient Jewish art also uses this device), an eye (yep, despite what conspiracy theorists may tell you, we Christians have been using the All-Seeing Eye before the Freemasons did), a triangle, the Tetragrammaton, and so on and so forth.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Thank you for the great pic links, Patrick.