How did Eastern Orthodoxy become morbidly obsessed with these ultra specific types of images?
>>18122091>>18122091They were the normative form of household worship in Late Roman Popular Religion.Pagans had little wood panel icons of the gods and heroes, specific to their liking, making home shrines.When Theodosius I forced tens of millions of funko obsessed pagans into being "Christian" they took the practice with them, inventing stories such as Luke the Evangelist being the first Icon-maker lol (on top of being a physician and a writer and an evangelist etc). This WAS a contentious issue with theologians though. So contentions it lead to the iconoclasm. It wasn't fully settled until the middle ages were in full swing (though it was always popular with the culturally pagan masses)
>>18122110Compare this late Roman Icon to "Christian" Icons of Military Saints. Almost identical in form.
>Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to the image breakers.>Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.>Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.>Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.>Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers.
>>18122110>>18122117Many artistic forms really were adapted almost 1:1 from Roman Paganism to Cathodoxy.Kybele and her cult became utterly ubiquitous in the Late Empire. And you can see how her artistic form changed; the lion on her lap being replaced with the infant Jupiter, and then that was replaced with the alleged infant Christ.Most people do not understand HOW different Late Roman Paganism was compared to Roman religion as of, say, 200 BC. This makes them not see the natural progression of Paganism into Cathodoxy. They think it went from "Jupiter and Neptune and Pluto naked and carved in marble et al" one day into "Mary and Jesus and the Saints in beautiful paintings"
>>18122125Specifically in regards to Kybele; it's no secret of history that tens of millions of people went from worshiping "Mater Deum" to worshiping the alleged "Mater Dei."
>>18122118If I could show you in the Bible Paul condemning those who make "icons" (verbatim) of God, would you believe it?
>>18122091What's interesting is why did the west not like these and prefer stained glass and frescos?
>>18122118The making of images is clearly a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy fathers.
>>18122138They didn't have a State Church like the Byzantines telling them what to do. So the forms of iconography in the West were simply more diverse. You could still find panel painting icons in the Middle Ages, but eventually as wealth increased more and more statuary was commissioned.
>>18122125Let's not even get started on the angels and halos and co
>>18122110That’s false, see 1 Kings 6:29, Exodus 26:1, Numbers 21:8-9, Exodus 25:10-13, Psalms 99:5, Joshua 7:6, did God command paganism and idolatry? >>18122141Protestants don’t see an issue with Christ leaving and the church disappearing for 1500 years. Sola scriptura affirmers cannot even be certain that Matthew wrote his own gospel.
>>18122144Meant to attach picrel.There's thousands of these wooden statues of Mary from Medieval West/Northern Europe.The Byzantine Empire established regular religio-political rituals which involved 2d Icons, cementing them as the normative form in the East.
>>18122151holy shit Im a retardPIC RELATED
>>18122155Don’t call excrement holy, that is blasphemy.
>>18122149There is no PORTRAITURE in the tabernacle.There is no LIKENESS of any thing. The Cherubs were not St. Michael or St. Gabriel and no one prayed to them.
>>18122144It was also slower in the west, likely a consequence, ironically, of their pagan past being more recent (and sincerely repudiated it instead of being compelled to be false professors like the Romans) so they could recognize this as the paganism they abandoned. At the time of the Byzantine iconoclasm the idolaters were promulgating the robber synod of Nicaea II as an ecumenical council, which met stern opposition in the west and a formal condemnation from the council of Frankfurt which met on the order of Charlemagne. The Franks of that time seem to have taken what has become essentially the Lutheran position, tolerating the existence of images but not their worship. I also seem to recall some time before then a story of a Frankish bishop who was taking up his new diocese in Italy, and was incensed to find images in the churches and began a campaign of iconoclasm against them.
>>18122149If I wanted to read this garbage papist propaganda I would get it at the source in Catholic Answers
>>18122091After the Iconoclam crisis they settled some rules regarding images, to avoid another outbreak:>No 3D art: only 2D (ironically, likely the actually original meaning of the Second Comandment, despite what kikes and some protestante claims)>Holy images to be really Holy and thus allowed in Churches had to use a very specific state-dictated art style, devoid of any personal creativity from the artist>Any innovation = bad if not illegal too, hence the static art style without big differences across centuries>Orthodoxy being a state-controkled Faith meant everywhere it spread, the local power just adopted the art style sanctioned by the most powerfull Orthodox state (first Byzantium, later Russia)
>>18122110>>18122117Who are the figures in these images?
>>18122178I believe the guy in the first one is Serapis
>>18122091That is idolatry. Praying to the dead is retarded because God has risen.
>>18122181Yes, his consort is likely Isis (as imagined in Ptolemaic Egypt)
>>18122118go back to romania
>>18122183They believe these individuals to be alive in heaven and able to forward their prayer to God. It's like the idea that it will increase the power of their prayer.
>>18122229They believe in an after life fantasy instead of the living God.
>>18122145Can you please explain
>>18122141Out of context quote mining.
>>18122137The bible didn't fall from the sky, the Church composed it, as it later did Nicaea II
>>18122243Greco-Roman art already had a tradition of winged female figures in long robes, mostly Athena/Minerva and Nike/Victoria. Those served as the basis for Christian representations of angels, which had little in common with Biblical descriptions. Many modern "angels" in Neoclassical art are also literally just Nike (eg the Victory Column in Berlin, the "Angel of Independence" in Mexico and so on)
>>18122292The "cherubs" of Christian art were also directly adapted from Greco-Roman Eros/Cupid or "putti", no such equivalent existed in Israelite art.
>>18122292To paraphrase the famous quote: “The first gulp from the glass of humanities will lead you to 'Christians done stole this', but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Wings are probably the single most widespread symbol for the spiritual realm. And long clothes, such as robes, long coats etc. have similar worldwide connotations because they are associated with slow movement and wisdom. To say Christians display angels as robed, winged humans because they learned it from the Greeks is like to say that Greeks walk on two legs because they learned it from the Turks. It's much more likely they figured it out themselves.
cont >>18122309This one is more or less legit though: >>18122299. But it's more of a function of the era, not of Christianity. Christians don't relly care about Cherubs being tiny winged babies, nowhere near to the point to which Orthos care about canonical Icons.
>>18122159You believe the use of images during worship is idolatrous, the tabernacle includes two cherubs of gold and it was revered.>>18122171As usual you consider the Bible and the early church to be Papist propaganda. Well done.
>>18122280Cope
>>18122407>You believe the use of images during worship is idolatrous, the tabernacle includes two cherubs of gold and it was revered.No sir, the images were not worshipped. The images of the OT were commanded by God and were placed in the sanctuary where none but the priests could view them. They were not put up for the people to see, they were not objects of worship, they did not depict God, and they were not made without divine command, all of which are differences from your idols.>As usual you consider the Bible and the early church to be Papist propagandaEmpty rhetoric, nothing but telling yourself lies to hide the truth from yourself. Show me where are the images in the bible? Which father was it who accepted images? The question before you now is whether you will follow God, or whether you will believe the pope when he commands you to believe to be white what your eyes declare to be black. My conscience is held captive by the word of God, I am compelled to reject Rome if I will serve God. Will you follow God or the pope?
>>18122421>the images were not worshippedNeither are the saints.>placed in the sanctuary where none but the priests could view themOn an average day. They were still viewed periodically, so this is a non-argument.>your idolsIdols work differently.>My conscience is held captive by the word of GodAnd your education by the word of prottie iconoclasts who have never studied what idolatry is.
>>18122428These people are just venerating so it's ok.
>>18122433Oh look, the Queen is an idol!
>>18122441Yes, I can't tell any difference between this and getting on my knees to pray to a dead person's image because I'm a pagan fool who's holding down the truth in unrighteousness and I think as long as I make myself really stupid it will save me from God's anger for my idolatry.
>>18122453Wait are you trying to tell me bowing to someone and talking to them is a sign of respect and not a sign of idolatry? Woah. Agreed lmao
>>18122459>Wait are you trying to tell me bowing to an image and praying to it and praising the god it depicts is a sign of respect and not a sign of idolatry?No
>>18122474>praising the god it depictsThere's the mistake. Saints aren't gods.So again, are you trying to tell me bowing to someone and talking to them is a sign of respect and not a sign of idolatry?
>>18122234So do you believe in soul sleep?
>>18122433>>18122441>>18122453One of these depicts a guy bowing slightly to the reigning monarch in the flesh, another depicts people offering prayers and praises to the image of a religious figure, and the other depicts people offering prayers and praises to the image of a religious figure. Obviously either each of these is exactly the same or none of them is
>>18122475Oh ok, so I just need to say Vishnu is a saint not a god while I worship its image, and then it's ok. Would Moses not put you to death?
>>18122479There is no shortage of cases of people bowing to each other (including in the Bible). We can play the game of inches for hours. In the end, you will still have to acknowledge that bowing and talking to someone does not constitute idolatry no matter if their soul is here or with God.Idolatry accusations fall apart the moment people look into what idolatry was.
>>18122481No idea, I'm not discussing worship.
>>18122485>We can play the game of inches for hours.There is no game of inches, what the papists are doing is indistinguishable from what the hindus are doing, while what you're posting may as well be a touchdown celebration because it has nothing in common. You have no shame and no fear of God and you do not know Christ, you will be put under God's judgement if you do not repent.
>>18122492>what the papists are doing is indistinguishable from what the hindus are doingthe main difference is catholics have a much higher degree of uniformity and consideration and that keeps their behaviors in good ordera major problem of the hindus is that pretty much anything goes so that any wacky concept can be justified if enough people are feeling itboth are still technically "idolatry" but the practical aspects are not the same
>>18122138Icons simply evolved into prayer cards in the west. Older prayer cards, like the ones used in crusades, are more orthdoxy looking
>>18122158But ezekiel cooked his magic bread with holy shit
>>18122299Israelite art is like saying african doctorate
>>18122441Technically yes since all royal families ultimately claim their descent from various pagan deities. The english for example claim descent from woden, ingvi and saxnot
>>18122478>So do you believe in soul sleep?Yes, a soul that is not needed can be shelved until assigned again to serve its purpose, but that has nothing to do with anyone living after death.
>>18122488>admits he can't even tell right from left
>>18122597What religious framework is this from? Is this Mormon?
>>18122607>What religious framework is this from?The correct one.
>>18122607Jehovah's Witnesses
>>18122612no. not that one
>>18122612Jehovahs witnesses are scared of crosses like vampires. They dont just dislike or not agree with the idea of a cross, they will literally run away if they see one. Ive seen it with my own eyes, its kinda funny
>>18122592yeah the anglo saxons did the normans didnt
>>18122640True, normans are frenxh and thus claim descent from a rapist sea goat
>>18122579Where can I look at these crusader prayer cards?
>>18122829I dont thonk many of them survived
>>18122842interdasting
>>18122588Mmm, czeched
>>18122421Good sir, the images are not to be worshipped as the 25th session of the Council of Trent (Decree on Images) states. But God commanded repeatedly the use of images in worship, what is forbidden is serving the image, not carving an icon. You also oppose images that do not depict God. The divine command is not to worship them, there is no command against using them. >where are the images in the Bible1 Kings 6:29, Exodus 26:1, Numbers 21:8-9, Exodus 25:10-13.>which father was it who accepted images St. John of Damascus, St. John Chrysostom, Eusebius, etc… It should be noted that the fathers talking against images are referring to pagan ceremonies and not Christian art. The Dura-Europos Church also had paintings. >follow God or the Pope? Since I follow God, I submit to his church. John 21:15-17>“He saith unto him, Feed my lambs… He saith unto him, Tend [Poimaine] my sheep… Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”Rev. 2:27>“And he shall rule [poimanei] them with a rod of iron…”God commands St. Peter to rule his sheep. St. Peter is the new Eliakim. Isaias 22:20-22> “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy [Shebna’s] robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”The one with the key was recognized as Prime Minister. St. Peter’s successors were righteous men like St. Linus (2 Timothy 4:21) and St. Clement (Philippians 4:13).
>>18122091The cult of Icons was an innovation born out of an extreme reaction to Iconoclasm. Not to say icons didn't exist before, they certainly did although nowhere near to the extent that it would become, most Iconoclast emperors were simply concerned about people revering icons too much and they didn't go out of their way to actively destroy them but rather hid them or hanged them up high so people couldn't touch them. The only emperor known to have gone out and actively destroyed icons was Theophilos. After Theophilos there was an active attempt to both exaggerate the anti-icon stance of previous emperors (although funnily enough, trying to exonerate Theophilos who was by far the most anti-icon of them all) and create a new cult around the use of icons in the Byzantine Church.The West also debated about Iconoclasm at the same time, inspired by what happened at Constantinople, and their answer was that iconoclasm was acceptable but they didn't really care and weren't going to do anything like it themselves. This even became a problem when Irene first rescinded Iconoclasm as Western Bishops believed that she was instituting icon worship and it resulted in a schism.
