I want to clarify the meaning and significance of icons in Christianity, with the hope that this will promote mutual understanding. I am not intending to begin a polemical thread, just to clarify what Orthodox Christians actually believe and practice. If, after reading my post, some still feel that icons are idolatrous or contrary to scripture they are of course free to make those arguments here but I will not defend against them, as I do not think polemics, especially online ones, are typically useful. On the other hand, sincere questions for the purpose of clarification I will gladly answer.
I am not a theologian so I will not pretend that my presentation without flaws or the most authoritative.
In the 8th century the iconoclast movement was launched in the Byzantine empire, which argued that icons were idolatrous. Among other reasons, they argued that icons were anathema because they violated the second commandment:
You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow to them or serve them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, recompensing the sins of the fathers on the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me.
The iconoclasts interpreted this commandment as an utter prohibition against any depictions of created things; many Protestants today make the same argument. Other important points they made included the impossibility of depicting the invisible God and the supposed limitation of icons to only depicting Christ's human nature or else confusing his human and divine natures.
The Orthodox defenders of icons, such as St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite, made the following points:
1. The second commandment could not possibly be a blanket prohibition of images, since God commanded the Holy Prophet Moses to create the golden cherubim on the Ark as well as images of cherubim embroidered in the veil protecting the Holy of Holies. Moses was likewise commanded to make a brazen image of a serpent to cure the Israelites of snake venom. The Prophet and King Solomon also included images of angels, as well as bulls and other creatures, when he built the Temple in Jerusalem, and this was blessed by God.
2. The second commandment is really concerned with offering the worship due to God to things which are not God ("for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God"). The icon given to icons is relative and directed ultimately toward the one true God. We honor the depiction only for the sake of Him whom it depicts; wood and paint are not objects of worship. We honor the saints and their relics likewise as reflections of God's glory, recognizing that no one but God is holy in himself; all holiness comes from God and reflects God's glory. Saints and relics are miracle-working only virtue of God's power working through them.
3. With the incarnation of Christ, the invisible God became truly human and therefore visible and depictable. Since Jesus Christ is one person, perfect God and perfect man, images of Christ are truly images of God incarnate. To deny icons is to deny the oneness of Christ and the reality of His incarnation.
4. God is utterly transcendent from His creation but also fully immanent in it; the created is saturated with God's energies and, especially since the incarnation, where God took on a human body of matter, matter can be blessed and permeated with holiness. We can observe God's glory in the creation in general, as well as in particular holy places and relics, and most of all in the mysteries or sacraments of the Church. Again, this does not permit worship of any material thing but honoring the holiness of God which works through matter.
Last edited by Iconodule; 10-16-2011 at 02:43 AM.
Reason: typo (omitted NOT)
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
No more than Muslims follow scholars who read Quran and Sunnah for them. Things are not so simple or one-sided.
Only in your imagination.
In many other threads, Amigo has repeatedly explained that a person would not be able to read and understand bible by themselves. They need to become christians first, and then have priests, popes etc to read bible for them.
Not so for Qur'an.
Anyone can read and understand al Qur'an easily as there is no contradiction in the Qur'an, the language is such beauty, the truth is clear and truth is separated from falsehoods, and there is no error in the Qur'an.
Meanwhile, an array of popes, priests, pastors, ministers, nuns, bible studies are required to "explain" away (ie. talk bullsh*ts) all the errors, contradictions, additions, ommissions, changes, discrepancies, etc etc in those thousands of existing bibles, not to mention the bibles that were lost, burned, destroyed, etc etc.
Things are simple and one sided, indeed.
Truth is always clear and are not to be mixed up.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]
Anyone can read and understand al Qur'an easily as there is no contradiction in the Qur'an, the language is such beauty, the truth is clear and truth is separated from falsehoods, and there is no error in the Qur'an.
Then why are there tafsirs? Why shaykhs and scholars? The board rules state:
format_quote Originally Posted by Islamic Forum Rules
This is not a Fiqh discussion board. Prolonged threads arguing over Fatwas and the details of Islamic law will be closed. Avoid asking questions that require a Scholar or Shaykh, as there is no one on the board qualified to answer your questions. Please use other knowledgeable means such as a scholar, Imam or knowledgeable person in your area or provide sources.
If there are such questions then obviously reading the Quran yourself isn't enough.
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
without being blunt like brother Ramadan (lol he can be funny though) i will also point out that the Quran clearly tells us to study it ourselves:
This is a Book full of Blessings that we have revealed unto you so people ponder upon its verses and those who possess intellect may reflect. (Quran 38:29)
"But none will be reminded except those who possess of intellect." (Quran 2:269)
this is not referring to priests - it is referring to anyone who cares to use their brain:
Surely the worst of animals in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb who do not use their brains.(Quran 8:22)
Do they not then ponder on the Quran, or are there locks on the hearts? (Quran 47:24)
"Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from [any] other than Allaah, they would have found within it much contradiction." [Quran: 4:82]
we are clearly told that the priests or scholars will not take our burdens on the day of judgement, if we didn't bother to think for ourselves.
they will bear their own burdens and a portion of the burdens of those they misled.
if you are sincere and you follow - doing your best, you may come through ok
but when you see a contradiction and then you follow without asking - will you point at the priest?
They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God. there is no god but He.
Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
Quran 9:31
Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear!
Quran 16:25
the scholar, Imam or knowledgeable person in your area possibly has more knowledge of the background of a verse -or how the Prophet (pbuh) applied it- but he cannot totally pervert the concept and make it mean the opposite of the spirit of the verse. and even the scholar wont bear your burden - he's just another man like you. but you'd go to any specialist in any field - simply because they have more facts.
but when you notice the "specialist" is blatantly overturning the fundamentals with no backing,
turns the sabbath which Jesus practicesd on saturday into sunday just because the roman emperor liked it that way - you have issues.
or eats the flesh of swine even though Jesus AND the other prophets held it as unlawful,
or tries to explain how a son can be 2 years older than the father - you need to sit down and start thinking.
does it make sense?
Christians also study the Bible themselves. Private reading is encouraged; private interpretation is something else. I trust that Muslims are not encouraged to write their own tafsirs of the Quran.
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
Then why are there tafsirs? Why shaykhs and scholars? The board rules state:
Quote Originally Posted by Islamic Forum Rules
This is not a Fiqh discussion board. Prolonged threads arguing over Fatwas and the details of Islamic law will be closed. Avoid asking questions that require a Scholar or Shaykh, as there is no one on the board qualified to answer your questions. Please use other knowledgeable means such as a scholar, Imam or knowledgeable person in your area or provide sources.
If there are such questions then obviously reading the Quran yourself isn't enough.
Fatwas is the matter of fiqh (jurisprudence).
In terms of aqeedah, it's all clear cut: no need of fatwas.
Meanwhile, in order to "explain" the most fundamental of christianity: the trinity, you need a myriads of scribes, scholars, popes, nuns, ministers, bible scholars, etc etc over 2,000 years, and YET it's still inexplicable.
Not to mention the endless other contradictions, errors, etc etc in the bible.
Christians also study the Bible themselves. Private reading is encouraged; private interpretation is something else. I trust that Muslims are not encouraged to write their own tafsirs of the Quran.
Then why did Amigo warn me not to read bible unless I become a christian and have holy ghost entered into me and guided by a priest?
This is a Book full of Blessings that we have revealed unto you so people ponder upon its verses and those who possess intellect may reflect. (Quran 38:29)
"But none will be reminded except those who possess of intellect." (Quran 2:269)
Surely the worst of animals in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb who do not use their brains.(Quran 8:22)
Do they not then ponder on the Quran, or are there locks on the hearts? (Quran 47:24)
"Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from [any] other than Allaah, they would have found within it much contradiction." [Quran: 4:82]
They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God. there is no god but He.
Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
Quran 9:31
Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear!
Quran 16:25
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
put it this way - if you're stuck on an island with nobody there - you can still somehow make sense of the Quran if you use your brains
- there are no priests in Islam - just unlearned learned and more learned.
people with white beards in the mosques often pray behind children who may happen to know more Quran.
even a child can sometimes figure out what grown ups miss due to their desire for conformity.
you seriously need to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDh9UtOVfmQ
Probably because of your marked tendency to lie, distort, make false assumptions, etc.
Please point out where I lied, distorted, make false assumptions?
If you can't show me where, you will have slandered me, and I don't think Jesus would like that.
what I have been saying in this section about christianity has always been based on your own scripture and your own belief.
I know you might not like it and it makes you uncomfortable, but it is a reflection of your own belief and faith.
Also, have you really thought through about the implication of what you said above?
If it was really the intention of Amigo, then he must have lied, and he actually meant that no one really needs to be a christians, filled by holy ghost, and guided by a priest to read bible.
It's either truth or false, not both. so which one is it?
It seems to me christians are comfortable in mixing both.
And anyway, Amigo said that in general terms, he didn't specifically direct that guidelines to read bible only to me.
put it this way - if you're stuck on an island with nobody there - you can still somehow make sense of the Quran if you use your brains
Unless you can't read classical Arabic in which case you're out of luck. And if you can read classical Arabic you're already familiar with Islam anyway. (Everyone says that "translations" are actually just interpretations)
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
so are bible translations - they usually catch the spirit of the verses from the writer's angle,
with regards to the bible though - there are no complete "original" hebrew manuscripts, and the only ones referred to as complete seem to be greek translations,
so when we compare the two - we do see that one is more practical,
it is for you to read and decide whether it makes sense, and whether or not it is from Almighty God
if you want a free copy (translation), please feel free to pm me,
peace
so are bible translations - they usually catch the spirit of the verses from the writer's angle,
with regards to the bible though - there are no complete "original" hebrew manuscripts, and the only ones referred to as complete seem to be greek translations
We do not ascribe the same kind of absolute authority to "originals". We know that God preserves the scriptures through his Church and that the essential meanings can remain intact between languages. Hence a Bible in translation is still a Bible, and we can pray in our own languages. Yet I know that I believe the same things as the Greek, Russian, or Arabic speaking Orthodox Christians.
It is my understanding that Muslims must pray the Salah in Arabic, even if they don't understand what they're saying. Converts can use translations in the beginning but must learn the Arabic as soon as possible. And no one can be a scholar unless he can read and understand the Quran and Sunnah in classical Arabic.
I do not much like to take the tone of a moralist. But the danger of the baobabs is so little understood, and such considerable risks would be run by anyone who might get lost on an asteroid, that for once I am breaking through my reserve. "Children," I say plainly, "watch out for the baobabs!"
well technically - they could be "scholars" on par with the bible scholars who don't understand hebrew or aramaic or greek,
but that's not an agreed upon standard for fully understanding the context.
i myself often translate verses for myself when i'm not happy with the ones i have available - and let me tell you - it is soooooooooooooooo different from the original,
sometimes you find yourself wanting to add 15 words to replace 5 arabic ones - simply because it translates differently depending on your frame of mind and situation. (angle).
i have seen it happen in the bible too and the meaning is often so different.
Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 54:1
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Galatians 4:27
or something like this gives you a totally different understanding since it's not a problem with translation - they've actually added and subtracted words:
Unless you can't read classical Arabic in which case you're out of luck. And if you can read classical Arabic you're already familiar with Islam anyway. (Everyone says that "translations" are actually just interpretations)
Even when you read Qur'an translations, there is no contradictions, errors, in the fundamentals and the truth is always set clear.
But when you read bible translations (ANY bible translations), there are THOUSANDS of contradictions, confusions, errors, etc.
and do you not see Roman political fingerprints all over this?
These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
John 9:22
it is obvious that the healer, the healed, the parents AND the believers were jews, (And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Acts 11:26)
but rather than write Roman king, Roman soldiery, Chief priest, Pharisees,- they write Jews, (as it was the Roman king calling the shots and the chief priests who had no authority were following orders)
but writing "jews" points to the likelihood that a political slant was being put on it and that blame was being misappropriated.
Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? 12And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. 13Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.
John 7:11-13
again you can see clearly that the people beginning to follow Jesus (pbuh) were true believers from among the Jews and that it was a Jewish feast.
So who would have a motive to write "The Jews" in place of leadership?
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?
.....Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?
You can also see that there was an order from the corrupt leadership not to mention him publicly, despite people debating about him in private and some accepting him to be the Christ.
(i'm sure you're aware of the denial of Peter).
back to topic - what i am saying is that if you don't look at it critically yourself - look at the blatant discrepancies and admit to yourself that people with a vested interest have attempted to obfuscate the truth,
your priests wont tell you it - because they believe that it is best kept quiet.
real bible scholars would not dare claim that there are no human fingerprints which have totally twisted some parts of it - because it is easy to prove,
i am not knocking the book (that would be disbelief according to the Quran - And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter. 5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.).
what i am saying is this
it involves those who just ignore the teachings of the book and believe it is all in their heart's desires
and those who fabricate in order to misguide the people:
78. And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. 79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!
Woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to them for the gain they make thereby.
Quran 2:78-79
We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit.
Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! 88.They say, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word: we need no more)."
Nay, Allah's curse is on them for their blasphemy: Little is it they believe. 89. And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,
- when there comes to them that which they recognise, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. 90. Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny what Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith. 91. When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down,
"they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them.
Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?"
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
(lol he can be funny though) i will also point out that the Quran clearly tells us to study it ourselves:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks