Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
God The Father (In Iconography)
Ok to be honest I am a bit disturbed in how much Orthodox people are using Icons of the Father depicted as Human in our worship like the Catholics... they are slowly creeping in inside the Church and we need the Church to make a stand on it.
The Fathers have condemned it, that we should not Draw the Father, since He is not Human and did not take flesh, neither should we draw the Father, Son and Holy Spirit prior to creation as Human because the Son was begotten of the Father (not with flesh) but took Flesh from the Virgin Mary... so even the pictures that show the Trinity most do not have the markings on Christs hands (being crucified) which leads us to saying that this picture depicts the Trinity prior to Creation, which is heresy because it also shows the Son in Human flesh.
Picture example of prior to creation, notice Christ does not have cross wounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H_Agia_Triada_Moni_Vatopediou_Agion_Oros.JPG
Some Vidoeos:
--- Not to add the many Greek Orthodox Videos who also adopted this.........
Can we get some insight on this please?
The Fathers have condemned it, that we should not Draw the Father, since He is not Human and did not take flesh, neither should we draw the Father, Son and Holy Spirit prior to creation as Human because the Son was begotten of the Father (not with flesh) but took Flesh from the Virgin Mary... so even the pictures that show the Trinity most do not have the markings on Christs hands (being crucified) which leads us to saying that this picture depicts the Trinity prior to Creation, which is heresy because it also shows the Son in Human flesh.
Picture example of prior to creation, notice Christ does not have cross wounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H_Agia_Triada_Moni_Vatopediou_Agion_Oros.JPG
Some Vidoeos:
--- Not to add the many Greek Orthodox Videos who also adopted this.........
Can we get some insight on this please?
Comments
Hence, the Holy Father, cannot be depicted in any physical character of iconography, eg, Michelangelo--Sistine Chapel.
It is not acceptable in the Orthodox Church.
It is not acceptable in the Church.
I had asked this question before and will copy my line of reasoning here. If someone could address it, I would be most grateful.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11637.msg139798#msg139798 date=1308345107]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
I'm not entirely sure why we cannot necessarily depict God the Father in iconography. While the Father never was incarnate, what do we make of the Ancient of Days described in Danial? Is this not a theophany of God the Father?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11637.msg139859#msg139859 date=1308419412]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Thank you for the link to the commentary. However, it still does not address my question. I know the Ancient of Days is God. My question is, is this not a theophany of God the Father? If this is, in fact, a description of God the Father, then would it not be possible to draw an icon of God the Father based on the description in Daniel?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11637.msg139899#msg139899 date=1308435050]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
If you don't think it is a theophany, that is fine. Regardless, we are given a description of the Ancient of Days. Furthermore, based on the context of the vision, it is (seemingly) clear that the Ancient of Days is God the Father, not God the Son, as God the Son is described as the 'Son of Man on a cloud' who is brought before the Ancient of Days. I've googled images of icons of the Ancient of Days and they always refer to the person as Christ. But is that accurate?
I understand the verse you've posted, and that is also the explanation given about the icon of the Ancient of Days. I guess I just don't understand why it cannot simply be an icon of God the Father, especially given the context of the vision. Here is another icon of the Trinity that I find interesting, though there are people that do not feel it is correct. I'd appreciate any insight about that as well.
Here is the icon:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11637.msg139962#msg139962 date=1308560423]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Thank you for that commentary by St. Jerome. It was certainly very insightful. That being said, I'm not entirely sure that St. Jerome is saying that the Ancient of Days is the second Person of the Trinity. I have noticed among the Apostles, when they write, that when they speak of God, they are referring to God the Father. When they wish to speak of God the Son, they often say 'Lord Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus'. Take, for instance, this passage from St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians: 'I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God, which was given to you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all utterance and all knowledge, even as the testimony of the Christ was confirmed in you, so as to not lack in even one gift of grace, while ye eagerly await the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is God, by Whom ye were called into the communion of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.'
The author of Hebrews begins saying, 'God, Who of old, in many parts and in many wasy, spoke to the fathers through the prophets, did in these last of days speak to us through the Son, Whom He appointed heir of all thing, by Whom also He made the ages...' (Heb. 1)
Note the bolded section. Clearly God is referring to the Father. That seems to be the trend, to refer to the Father as God, and the Son as Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit. As such, when St. Jerome says that the Ancient of Days is God, could it not be taken to mean that the Ancient of Days is the Father?
I appreciate the similarities drawn between the Ancient of Days in Daniel's vision and that of St. John's vision. However, I can't help feel that they are still different. Daniel's vision is a pre-incarnation vision clearly distinguishing the Ancient of Days from the Son of man, whereas St. John's vision is a post-incarnation one. In Daniel's vision, the Son of man is brought before the Ancient of Days and 'He (i.e. the Ancient of Days (God the Father) gave unto Him (i.e. the Son of man (God the Son) authority and honor and royal power.'
This is as Christ Himself says, 'All things have been committed to me by my Father.' (Matt. 11:27); 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.' (Matt. 28:18) and 'Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;' (John 13:3).
And St. Paul says, 'For even as in Adam all die, so also in then Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ at His coming. Then cometh the end, whenever He should deliver up the kingdom to God and Father, whenever He should abolish all rule and all authority and power. For it is necessary for Him to reign, until He should put all the enemies under His feet. Death, the last enemy, is to be abolished; for, 'He put in subjection all things under His feet.' But whenever He should say 'all things have been put in subjection,' it is manifest that it is except the One Who put all things in subjection to Him. And whenever all things should be put in subjection to Him, then the Son also Himself shall be put in subjection to the One Who put all thins in subjection to Him, that God may be all in all.' (1Cor. 15)
And again, St. Paul says, 'On this account I also, having heard of the faith among you in the Lord Jesus and the love which is toward all the saints, cease not giving thanks on behalf of you, making mention of you at the time of my prayers, in order that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the glory, may give to you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the full knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what is the wealth of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe according to the energy of the might of His strength, which He energized in the Christ, after He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right Hand in the heavenlies, above every principality and authority and power and lordship, and every name which is named, not only in this age, but also in the coming one. And He put in subjection all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who filleth all things in all.' (Eph. 1)
Do you see what I'm saying? Based on the context, the Ancient of Days seems (to me at least) be referring to God the Father. And not because of the white hair and what not that would imply He is somehow 'older'. I'm well aware that is just merely imagery and symbolism.
Note further in St. Jerome's commentary the following: Note the bolded section. Even St. Jerome refers to God the Father simply as [Almighty] God. What are your thoughts?
The full discussion can be found here.
but I will mention something... when Abraham was visited by the Lord, how did He show Himself, when people saw Him with the three holy youth in the fire, how did people see Him?
when God the father spoke in creation, it was Jesus (the logos)... you see my beloved, Jesus was not created... He was always with the father, the trinity is equal, and always is and was existing ... so when God appeared in the old testament it was the image of Jesus.
my beloved, an icon is a written art, it is full of symbolism... so when I look at the icon of Moses in front of the burning bush, and in the bush saint Mary appears, is it wrong?! if in the scene of Creation, I write the sea and the earth, and show Jesus, who was present in that creation, is it wrong?! when I have Adam and eve present, and hiding from Jesus is it wrong? (remember they feared the VOICE of God, or the word of God, which is the Logos)
neshkor Allah, akhadna el baraka
The Father cannot be written on the icon... I will later write the discussion of I think it was saint John of Damascus against the iconoclasts.
John of Damascus is not a saint in our Church.
I know Pope Shenuda wouldn't go inside churches that depict these pictures... Why are some Orthodox Eastern or Orientals adopting these in this age?
I realize that, but this thread is appropriately titled to support my question as well. I do genuinely wish someone could provide some insight into them.
Did you even read what I had posted or are you just blindly regurgitating things?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Did you even read what I had posted or are you just blindly regurgitating things?
No I am blindly regurgitating things. ;D
Thought as much.
What I am saying is the Father never took a form and appeared to men in a manner equivalent to that of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit. Thus, He is not depicted in icons.
Well now we're getting somewhere.
One could argue that the Holy Spirit did not take a form in the way Christ did either. The Holy Spirit 'appeared like a dove' at the baptism of Christ and 'as tongues of fire' on the day of Pentecost. The Father appeared as the Ancient of Days in the vision of Daniel. I would say that the manifestation of the Father as the Ancient of Days is on par with the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Only the Son was ever truly tangible and could be handled. If we cannot depict the Father in the context of the Ancient of Days, then why depict the Holy Spirit as a dove in the Baptism Icons or as tongues of fire in the Pentecost Icons?
Reading the passages about baptism, it is clear that the Holy Spirit was tangible.
Matthew 3:16 NKJV
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
Luke 3:22 NKJV
And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."
John 1:32 NKJV
And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.
You raise some interesting points. I was quickly glancing at what the Fathers had to say about the appearance of the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Christ and the only Father that really says anything about the manifestation is St. Ambrose. Here is what he has to say: Excerpt taken from Of the Holy Spirit, Bk. III, Ch. I (Emphasis mine)
St. Ambrose seems to think that there were people present who did not see the Spirit. If the Spirit were physically tangible, would not everyone present have seen Him?
I was also just thinking, 'bodily form' does not necessarily mean 'physical and tangible manifestation/incarnation'. For instance, in any apparition of a saint, the saint appears in a 'bodily form'. However, not everyone necessarily sees the saint (as in the case of the Blessed Theotokos at Zeitun). In the case of Christ's incarnation, everyone saw Him, though they may not have recognized Him as God incarnate. This was not the case in the appearance of the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Christ. In the case of Daniel's vision, the Father took a 'bodily form' in the form of the Ancient of Days. Daniel saw Him and even described Him. So my objection about depicting the Holy Spirit and not the Father still stands.
Whatever the case may be, the appearance of the holy Spirit throughout both the OT and the NT is vivid. As you know, Tradition received says that the Holy spirit has five types or forms: Dove, fire, water, oil, and wind. In contrast the Father has none.
This is why, I believe, the Traditional icons we received never had the depiction of the Father. As far as I know, there are no ancient Orthodox icons, where the father is being depicted.
In the church, we use the water and the oil as tangibles through which the Holy Spirit is received. We also use the bread and the wine as tangibles through which the flesh and the blood of the Son is received.
Of course I am not separating the Holy Trinity. I am just saying that both the Son and the holy Spirit are visible in the Church rituals while the Father is not.
My understanding is this depiction started in the 10th century in the Latin rite.
Father bless!
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11839.msg141494#msg141494 date=1310652565]
Kephas, why are you objecting when the teaching of the Orthodox Church is clear?
I'm not objecting. I'm merely trying to better understand why, in the context of the Ancient of Days (and only in that context) the Father cannot be portrayed. If you have any input, I would greatly appreciate it.
imikhail,
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
The Word is truly incarnate and is truly a particular man. This has occurred in truth and not as a vision. Therefore the Word incarnate is depicted because to show him as a man is to show a truth. But we have no idea what Daniel saw, and therefore cannot even represent his own vision, nor do we have any idea of how his vision relates to reality.
The Father is not incarnate and therefore does not have any form, in heaven or in earth. What is seen in a vision is not reality. What was seen on earth as Christ is reality and truth.
The image of God the Father in Orthodox theology and iconography
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-tpnBl8BaF0C&lpg=PA134&dq=prohibition icon father&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=ancient days&f=false
Father bless!
Thank you for your insight and the book reference. I will definitely check it out. If you will permit me, I have one more question. Regarding the Ancient of Days icons that depict Christ as the Ancient of Days, would you say this is permissible because Christ was the only person of the Trinity who was incarnate? The icon, as I understand it, is based on the description given in the Book of Revelation, which was also a vision. However, because it is of Christ, is it still acceptable despite it being based on a vision?
A couple other questions. Why do visions not present anything worthy of veneration or as revelations of spiritual truths? Additionally, what is the basis of depicting angels as they have never been incarnate? We have descriptions of them based on visions, from what I understand.
The icon represents a presence of the depicted character. The purpose is to personify the character.
The Son was present with us and was seen.
The Holy Spirit is present with us and in us and was seen.
The Son is the image of the Father and whoever sees Him sees the Father
The angels were seen by many throughout the OT and the NT (Abraham, Lut, Jacob, Gideon, Tobit, Zachariah the priest, Mary, Joseph, St Peter, ...)
The Father was never personified to humans, never interacted with them directly but through His Son.
I personally believe it is a heresy to personify the Father for Christ Himself said:
" No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 6:46
"he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me" John 12:45
These verses clearly indicate that no one has seen the Father. The interaction we have with the Father is through the Son. If we personify the Father, we would be creating an image for Him and thus deny the fact that the Son is the only image of the Father.
Also, if we were to have two images in front of us: one for the Father and one for the Son, which one should we conform to? St Paul clearly states that we should conform to the image of the Son (for the father has no image) as in 1 Cor 15:49.
Hope this helps.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
A couple other questions. Why do visions not present anything worthy of veneration or as revelations of spiritual truths? Additionally, what is the basis of depicting angels as they have never been incarnate? We have descriptions of them based on visions, from what I understand.
1. I thought that the Ancient of Days was "Christ"
2. Angles can be depicted as Humans because they appear to us in the Human form as they have appeard to many saints.. (we depict them with wings to show that they are not human)
Son before his martyrdom (Acts 7: 55,56)
the Father’s face (Rev. 22:4).
us since we already have a promise from Lord Jesus to see the Father (Matt.
5:8), in fact Our Lord told us that the angels “always see the Father’s face”
(Matt 18:10) and that in the resurrection we shall all be like the angels of
the Father in heaven (Matt.22:30); not given into marriage but also seeing the
Father’s face as mentioned in the Holy Book of Revelation.
on the eastern wall of some of our Coptic Churches by misinformed iconographers
who are drawing the scenes from chapters 4 and 5 of the Holy Book of Revelation
with the “One sitting” on the throne having the wounds of the crucifixion on the
wrists while depicting a “Lamb” as though it is slain next to the “One sitting”.