Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50
I think either of these is totally blasphemous and wrong. It is one thing to represent Jesus as a man; it's an altogether complete departure from Church teaching to create images of God.

The ancient Jews taught that it was wrong to even write the name of God. Since Christians took it upon themselves to write the name of God, what is the difference between writing an icon for the 99% of the population that was illiterate, and writing the name of God for the 1% of the population that could read? Besides, if we go back early enough, the Church taught subordinationalism and no defined Trinity; therefore these icons would have been considered orthodox at one time.

565 posted on 03/05/2010 4:35:52 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies ]


To: MarkBsnr
Besides, if we go back early enough, the Church taught subordinationalism and no defined Trinity; therefore these icons would have been considered orthodox at one time.

The icon was made in 500 AD or so then the icon would not have been orthodox. By that time the Church already held at least five out of seven Ecumenical Councils and the issue of Christology has long been settled.

567 posted on 03/05/2010 4:49:31 PM PST by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson