2nd Commandment - no graven images - really?

Post Reply New Topic

^^
On the other hand, I think Oscar Wilde and Walter Pater might advocate worshipping the Renoir and the joy of its meaninglessness

You can see me praying in front of a statue but I'm neither praying to nor worshipping the statue. I'm using the statue to focus my attention on Mary or Jesus or whoever. In the same way, if I'm talking to a picture of my mother, it's not about the pic, it's about the real Mom wherever she may be.

Aha! So that's where Mohammad took this idea from.

That's why if you look inside islamic structures, like Taj Mahal or mosques, you don't see any drawings of persons or animals at all, just artistic writings and symbols.


Taj Mahal:

They were Jews, and Jews to this don't use any icons or statues in their temples, like Muslims.




Roman influence.

If I recall correctly God ordered certain images in the construction of the temple. I know of course the Ark of the Covenant had the two winged angelic figres.

Yep. I've read the madonna and child imagery is probably taken from a pegan goddess queen of the heavens. Paganism converted into Catholicism like the festival of lights/ yuletide/christmas. Even the word "god" (gott) is said to have originally pertained to the Germanic deity Wotan.

Jesus' disciples didn't use icons as part of their prayer and worship for the very simple reason that they had the Eternal Prototype right there in their midst!

If you're really curious about classical Christian iconography, I recommend The Three Treatises on the Divine Images by St. John of Damascus (8th century response to the Iconoclasts).

Concerning a few other questions raised:

1) The distinction MUST be made between worship and veneration. Failing to appreciate this has led many to believe, erroneously, that Roman Catholics and Orthodox, among other things, worship the Virgin Mary, the Saints, icons, etc. Worship is due the Holy Trinity. Everything else is veneration. Walk into an Orthodox church and you will see people venerating everything in sight--kissing crosses, icons, relics, each other--but it is not worship.

2) When we venerate an icon or pray towards one, it's not the wood and the paint that is the object of that veneration. It is therefore not an idol. As St. Basil the Great (4th century) said, the honor passes to the prototype. Just as if you had a photo of a loved one and you kissed it, it's not an act of love for the paper and ink, but for the person depicted.

3) When the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who we believe is Jesus Christ, became incarnate, it was a complete game changer. All of a sudden God became depictable. We Orthodox believe that not only can we depict him, but how could we not? So, we consider icons not only permissible, but necessary to worship in fullness. Every icon is a reminder of the Incarnation, especially the icon of Christ and his Mother, because it reminds us of our belief that He fully took on human flesh from her while still being fully God. NOTE: We don't depict God the Father because He is not incarnate. The Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove, but only in the icon of Christ's baptism.

4) The oldest extant Christian icons date to the 2nd century and are found on the walls of tombs where early Christians celebrated services at the graves of martyrs. Icons are also known as "windows to heaven" because they depict the Saints in their glorified state (hence the "halo" or mandorla). And no, we don't pray "to" the Saints and the Virgin Mary strictly speaking. We ask for their prayers, just as I could ask one of you for your prayers.

Or theoretically, even the sign of the cross before an image of Jesus at Sunday Mass could be seen in the same vein. Assuming we believe Jesus is the son of God, he would be a demi-god aside from God, and therefore sacrilege to idol worship under the ten commandments. That said, the Catholic/Lutheran version of the 2nd is very different from the Talmudic one.

Talmudic: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
Catholic/Luthern: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

It's almost as if the early Christians realized their worship of Jesus could be a violation, so they 'edited' the 2nd to fit their agenda.

No Trinitarian Christian believes Jesus is a demi-god compared to the Father. That's heresy.

The early Christians and Jesus Himself used the Septuagint translation. The Orthodox still do. The second commandment is the same "no graven image..." You do know that Lutherans didn't exist for another 1500 years, right?

Yes, but if look at things historically and not denominationally, they're an off-shoot of Catholicism, therefore when talking historically they'll always be lumped together.

Utter nonsense.

Never heard anyone but you ever "lump Lutheranism and Catholicism together".

ALL of Protestantism came into existence when Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation. So all Protestantism ultimately "split off from Catholicism".

I am formerly Catholic and formerly protestant Trinitarian.

They are both different and the same.

When I broke away from Catholicism and became Protestant, I certainly welcomed the difference; I sure felt like I was following the bible as preferred to before.

Then it was brought to my attention (after a falling away from being a believer) about the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Pagan polytheism existed simultaneously with monotheistic Christianity (which history has dragged in the mud, referring to them as Aryans). Many at the council felt monotheism was theologically correct; yet they decided to make trinitarianism standard Christianity.

Only John 10:30 is a verse to where a supposition could be made that Jesus could be God. If Jesus was in fact divine, than what is referred to as the sacrifice isn't one at all, because he would've felt no pain when the nails went through. Also, the angels would not have had to minister unto him (Matthew 4:11), because if Jesus were divine, he could overcome temptation in the snap of a finger.

An Account of the Council of Nicea

Yes, therefore they are an off-shoot. If they developed their religion completely outside the confines of Catholicism I'd call them a unique denomination such as the Eastern Orthodox, Gnostic Christians, or Coptic Christians-- but they did not, they borrowed heavily from Catholicism. Yes, they made some alterations, but that's what off-shoots do, find some crap they don't like change it, but keep the vast majority in tact. That's Protestantism in a nutshell. The differences among European developed Christianity is nothing like the differences among European Christians and Eastern Christians. Aside from that, everybody is missing my point...not that Lutherans were around at the Council of Nicaea (hell Catholics officially weren't either), but those are the two groups that are still using the modified 2nd commandment-- read up on Arianism vs. Non-Arianism for more information on the politics (agendas) at play in this issue.

Edit: Want proof they're lumped together historically? Try explaining to me how Protestantism came about without mentioning Catholicism...

If Jews to this day don't use any icons or statues then why Jesus would have prayed differently back then?

Didn't Jesus pray in a Jewish temple?

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 22 Dec 2018, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.