Can any Orthodox prove that icons were ever used before 300 AD? If not, how can the church claim to be carrying on the tradition of the first apostles?
The same way they can claim Jesus actually existed and wasn't just some mythological representation unto which they could project their christian beliefs:
Just bullshit your way through it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
>>529245
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus
>>529269
This is a synagogue though. Even if it was an example of the early Christian Church there's no evidence that the images were ever venerated, up until Constantine.
Also, I'm not arguing this to be a dick, I've been looking at converting to the Orthodox church and I feel like I have to ask the hard questions before I commit to it
>>529245
They did have icons but they were fundamentally early different. Because Christians were beign persecuted they had to smaller an discrete. They were made on tiny cards that could be easily hidden in one's pocket. Devote believers would have a large collection of such cards and would trade them among each other.
This is actually where TCG card games came from.
Also, what of the Synod of Elvira specifically forbidding images in the church?
>>529301
I'm not Orthodox but you should realize the old church's ways were hidden and mysterious
Same time things like the IXTHUS and Chi rho were certainly venerated; as were whatever fragmentary pieces of Scripture (both new and old) Christian communities living underground could get their hands on.
Veneration also doesn't mean worship, it means accepting something as an image of God. In that sense even a fragment of Torah taught by a Jewish convert to Christianity could be an icon of veneration, and would have been according to Orthodox philosophy
>>529335
>>529301
the early church met in other saints' houses
no denomination is going to be accurate to the early church
>>529301
Icons are venerated in the OT, m8
>>529403
yeah before all of that was fulfilled through christ
>>529349
The Old Church was basically a secret society. They had a front, but core Christian doctrines were only for the initiated. The biggest one is that Chris is God...the Gospel of John, for instance, was only for the initiated, whereas the other Gospels were approved for catechumens. That was why catechumens for a long time still got expelled from a Church right before the Nicene Creed is said (which was a formulization of the original, secret Christian confession). The priest says, "The doors!" And the catechumens are supposed to leave (which they generally don't these days), and some Christians go to guard the doors so they can warn if someone is coming.
>>529408
Why would Christ fulfilling the covenant, do away with icons? Icons aren't just something used in worship, they are a fundamental element of theology. God made man in his own icon. An icon is a reflection, like in a mirror.
>>529433
well i'm wondering how the ark of the covenant is relevant to the new covenant
>>529408
Take a look at this
>>>/lit/7534161
Note that the word "idol" comes from the Greek word for "form" (an important concept in Platonism). The word "icon" comes from the Greek word for "image", which means a reflection of something. When you are skyping with someone, you are talking with their icon.
>>529441
I'm saying veneration of icons predating Constantine quite a while, and isn't going to be present in many old churches because
A: Early Christians were low key and a secret society, iconography could be used to find them. Jews or Romans could barge in at any moment and demand to know what is going on, that is why Christians had to have guards outside the doors to alert everyone if Roman or Jewish cops were coming.
B: A great deal of early Church iconography got rekt by the iconoclasts.
>>529422
>The Old Church was basically a secret society. They had a front, but core Christian doctrines were only for the initiated.
Wow. You know the more I learn about early Christianity the more I'm convinced that orthodox Christianity and Gnostic Christianity come from the exact same source.
You are telling me that there really were "secret teachings of Jesus"
>>529448
>family is an icon
are you sure?
matt 10:21
“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
luke 12
49“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
>>529467
Well, in a way you're right, but none of the Gnostics were disciples of Jesus, whereas three of the Gospels were written by Christ's disciples, and the earliest Christian writings were by Paul, and his faction included the Apostles.
Christ was a Jewish rabbi (but not born into it) who knew the oral law backward and forward, and that's why he could crush other Pharisees (Christ himself was technically a Pharisee, that is, a supporter of the oral law, in contrast with the Sadduccees, who were sola scriptura) in debates. So Orthodox Christianity came out of Jews. Gnosticism, on the other hand, was a Platonist movement that came out of the Greeks and had zero to do with the ancient Jewish religion.
>>529478
Family is surely an icon, but it can also be an idol. Important distinction here. You cannot deny Christ out of duty to your father, and that is what he is talking about.
>>529461
or alternatively icons weren't sanctioned in the bible. christians calling the name of the lord could be used to find them but they still did it, and they were prepared for the consequences.
churches weren't a thing before constantine. early iconography was reserved for graves and catacombs and they generally avoided depicting christ. they instead would depict 'the good shepherd', the chi-ro, fish, old testament scenes.
here is one of the earliest icons ... tied up with the trappings of paganism, no less.
this stuff was all untouched by iconoclasm since it belongs in the former western empire, but it shows just how unchristian it was
>>529485
>Gnosticism, on the other hand, was a Platonist movement that came out of the Greeks and had zero to do with the ancient Jewish religion.
Is Christian Gnosticism a 1st or 2nd century movement?
>>529487
but can't that be said of all icons? no one needs an icon to fellowship with the lord. the only thing i can think of that comes to sanctioned icons in the bible is bread/wine
>>529516
>or alternatively icons weren't sanctioned in the bible
Uh. they definitely are. The interior of the Temple of Jerusalem was decked out with them, not to mention the Ark itself was an icon.
There were Jewish icons with YHWH as sol too, that doesn't mean these were the usual Jewish icons.
>>529516
how do we know that's supposed to be Christ and not just regular old Sol Invictus?
>>529520
Early dating for the Gospel of Thomas is between 40 and 70, so definitely first century.
>>529544
I'm presuming there obvious Christian icons in that tomb.
Friendly reminder
>>529533
i mean the new testament
>>529561
Constantine is knowledgable, polite, and a total qt. Fuck off.
>>529562
Why would they have to be sanctioned? Images in general aren't explicitly sanctioned by the NT either.
>>529561
>using the native extension
>filtering by name and not by tripcode
>filtering
shiggy
>>529542
Well Gnosticism existed before Jesus, but Christian Gnosticism is a very special off-shoot.
>Simon Magus
So with the new Christianity being popular the one they wanted a piece of the market, so they cast the Christian hero of Jesus as a Gnostic prophet. I guess the fact that his originally teachings were an esoteric secret allowed him to fit into the narrative pretty well.
I know there were unitities between Judaism and Gnosticism in the form of Kabbalahism. From my research it seems there were some branches of Gnostism that did not view material things being intrinsically evil but rather of being lesser, and a way to become distracted from the completely spiritual world. Abraxian Gnostism for instance solves the problem of evil by saying that the supreme God of the universe contains all elements of good and evil and it is reflected in creation.
>>529574
yeah because there is no need for them. there isn't any need even for dedicated places of worship
>>529587
Uh, why not? There is a very important need for icons: they are how we worship with our eyes, just as incense is how we worship with our nose. To abolish them would be anti-material. The point of Christ was to *fulfill* the material, transform it from carnal to corporeal, not to do away with it. We should use all five senses to glorify God (and do, in Divine Liturgy).
>>529596
so the material is fulfilled through christ, now we only need to fellowship with him with our spirit
>>529627
No, we need the material. In fact, our fellowship with him has to be material too. That is what Holy Communion is all about.
We need fellowship with him through all our senses.
>>529245
We don't need to. We just need to show that there were veneration of saints and imagery used prior to that period which we have plenty.
Ignatius of Antioch was happy with the faithful kissing his bonds when they visit him.
>>529375
That's a given, but the Orthodox church specifically claims to have its legacy of worship handed down from the Apostles.
>>529749
Apostles were Jews, so I'm sure they venerated icons at the Temple.
Christianity is not some isolated religion from no where. It is a continuation of Judaism. The Christian clergy is a continuation of the Jewish clergy.
>>529346
The wording on its prohibition seemed to be as if it is done to solve a problem which we don't know what?
We also know that it simply forbids images on walls of the church and not any other areas of it.
Either way this is more of a response to a pragmatic problem rather than say an actual prohibition of icons and imagery.
This is also the same with the later condemnation of iconoclasm in which the emphasis on the Icon is made as a response to the problem of iconoclasm.
>>529757
That's too much of a stretch to me as someone who believes in Orthodoxy.
I would see the veneration of Icons as a result of being stand ins for relics or actions such as venerating the chains of prominent figures of the Church such as we see with St Ignatius of Antioch.
>>529801
You might want to look at the debates of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
>>529811
I don't recall any claim of Jews venerating icons. They however certainly have a sort of veneration of prophets and angels.
>>529839
They did refer to the presence of imagery and God sanctioning their construction.
Nothing is said about their veneration as the point is that Icons are acceptable.
>>529867
Joshua 7:6
>>529878
Ok.....I didn't see that coming. I guess you have a point on this though I wouldn't say that the Jews venerate the carvings of Cherubim in their temple.
>>529910
I think it is very possible. Jews venerated all sorts of powers above them, including parents, judges, elders, priests and kings, and the OT refers to Saint Michael as "the great prince"., and Psalms 91:11 says angels have charge over humanity. At the very least, they were venerated as the bronze snake was.
>And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Religion is fiction not history..
>>530088
History of religion can be discussed here
Fuck off to reddit mongo
