When I was still a Protestant, and researching Orthodox beliefs, I read John of Damascus' book, "On Holy Images". That book is what totally convinced me of the importance of icons.
God the Father, god the son, and God the holy Spirit look alike. SO whoever see the son he has seen the father that's why Jesus Christ is called son of God. Son always looks like father.
God is light and spirit. Spirit can't be seen but light💡 can be seen. Moses saw God little bit🤏🤏 and God's light reflected in Moses. The Grace on his face.
Genesis 1: 26-27 "And, God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him".
Thank you so much for your kind words! Please help spread our work around and send people our way in order to help us continue doing this work for many years. ( help us via patreon/paypal but also by simply watching, commenting, subscribing etc)
LOVE! FANTASTIC! An excellent catechisis on iconography, the incarnation and why it is not proper to portray God the Father! (Another reason why we should never portray God the Father, especially in this modern “Holy Trinity” icons, is because it confuses those of other religions, such as the Jews and Moslems. They think we worship three separate gods, and they use this against us in their polemics against Christianity.)
Yes and we can choose to be Christ like, full of love, compassion, joy and happiness and in prayer, fasting some have been blessed by divine encounters by god etc
The Rublev trinity is probably the most theologically correct way to depict the trinity. Because it was an event that sort of hinted to the reality of the trinity. The three angels speaking as one etc etc. At the end of the day it is not an icon of the trinity but rather an icon depicting an event which foretold the revelation of the trinities existence. I hope that answered your question. Stratis
To add onto what Trisagion Films has said, the icon depicts the story in Genesis when three men came to Abraham and Sarah. It was revealed later on in the story that one of the "men" was actually the Lord Himself while the other two were angels that were sent to Sodom and Gomorah to save Lot. Indeed the icon is expressing the truth of the Trinity that the story hints at with the number of "men" being three. But it's important to note that it was NOT the actual Trinity that appeared as the three men. This would be impossible for the reasons given in the video. God Bless!☦
Dear friends of Trisagion Films, We need your help and support in order to continue to produce these Films. Please donate through PayPal at www.paypal.com/us/fundraiser/charity/3379869. Your donations are Tax Deductible. Trisagion Films is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization registered with the IRS and the State of Georgia.
So, I've been watching all your videos, and I see you need some support. I just got out of prison, and while I was in my wife took everything from me.... But I hope to be back to work by the end of lent.... I just wanted you guys to know someone cares and wants to help and God willing will be able to someday soon. I don't know why my caring matters, but.... IDK. God bless you guys!
Honestly whenever I saw icons of “The Father” I always felt something that was very wrong about the icon, anyone who owns an icon with “The Father” depicted, get rid of it.
Well said! As a Catholic, I thank you for this .....I think God the Father was too often used as social control and not nearly enough as the Daddy Our Lord called Him. Blessings to all there.
Who could look at Him? Who could stand in His presence? Beyond comprehension. Un created creator. Beyond form. Beyond time. Beyond ALL earthly comprehension. I , sinner that I am , do not deserve to see Him. That's why he sent the Son.
0:50 Because Christ took Material Body, Matter Can Be Deified/Spirit Bearing. 1:32 "I do not worship matter, but the creator of matter." 2:26 The Father Cannot Be Seen 4:28 Father's Glory Is Uncapturable The Incarnation did not involve The Father Incarnating, It Was The Son Who Incarnated. The Son was Sent By The Father. 6:37 Bodyless, Uncircumscribed (Unlimited) (Unbound), Without Form
I once saw a hierodeacon explain it thus: We cannot depict “The Father” (ontological impossibility). We can depict “The Image of the Father” (“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”).
Yes. If Moses had to "not look", then there was something to "not see". I see no prob with depicting the Father, since the Trinity always act in concert.
What icon other than Christ himself is a better depiction of God? Through Christ the unseeable God himself revealed him to us and whoever sees Christ see God
No, because it doesn't try to depict what cannot be described. It shows a moment in history in which three angels appear to Abraham. These angels speak in unison and are there in place of God. Only later, with Christianity, we realize that these angels were to represent the Holy Trinity. So it's a symbolic and historical image that depicts three angels but simultaneously depicts a moment when man and God met. In no way is it saying that the Holy Trinity looks like the angels. Nor that specifically God the father appears like an angel. I hope that helps
If it is indeed sinful, why is there an image of the Father in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral? It is in the center at the very top. I have been there many times.
Just because they have it doesn't mean its ok... Many have been ignoring these things... because its familiar and they don't dig any deeper. This isn't our opinion but that of the fathers of the Church. The Russians themselves have a council that condemns it...
@@Trisagionfilms, papist influence. Jesuits controlled them for a long time. That was their Babylonian captivity. May it & any & all false beliefs & praxes that have crept in be ruled on & thrown out @ the final, holy Ecumenical Council that will be held after the forthcoming general war (WW3).
The Spirit did not actually become a dove so we have never seen it, it was never incarnate. we don't depict things that never became flesh. Christ the Word became flesh so we depict Him. Some people dont have a problem with the dove but I would say that theologically it isn't correct. Depicting it in the image of theofany as a dove is fine because of the text. But making an icon of a dove and calling it the Holy Spirit is not correct, even if some have done it in the past or still do it now.
@@Trisagionfilms ah, thanks for the clarification! The video was really informative too, I’m about to become a catechumen and was wondering about how I should feel on icons of the Father 😌
In the baptism of Christ, it has become a tradition to depict the Spirit as a dove because it says, "the Spirit descended like a dove," but that does not mean that the Spirit ever took on a solid form; it did not take on flesh. So we should not depict the Spirit on its own as a dove in an icon, only in the icon of Theofani; there is one other image that illustrates the Spirit as a dove on a throne which I believe symbolizes the throne that the Son will come to when He judges the living and the dead, that also seems to be okay. Still, I would have to look more into it. It is also seen as a flame in Pentecost because it has no tangible form, so iconographers use different ways to show it based on tradition, the scriptures, and theology.
The ancient of days is a depiction of the Son. Unfortunately, there has been confusion about what the vision in daniel was. But the ancient fathers understood the Ancient of Days as being the Word and not the Father; that's why the vast majority of Ancient of Days icons are of the Son, as they should be.
@@Trisagionfilms I’m worried that this creates a Nestorian conception of Christ, where the human Christ kneels before and receives his authority from God-Christ. Can it not be that when the Fathers call Christ the Ancient of Days, they mean that in a similar sense to Christ being called by Isaiah, “Everlasting Father”? To call Jesus “Father” doesn’t replace God the Father, nor does calling Christ “Ancient of Days” necessarily replace the Father as Ancient of Days.
Christ is the only icon of the Father. If we were divine ourselves, having been begotten from the Father's being, then we too could depict Him. But seeing how we're not divine we can only depict Christ who became like us in every way except in sin. The icon of the Father must forever remain single and one, that of Christ Himself.
We have a white bearded old man in the central fresco in our church - very likely by a roman catholic painter. It is not canonical but it stays due to historical reasons (even though I prefer not to look at it as it distracts me). The Holy Spirit though incarnated as a white dove so it is just right to depict like that, am I mistaken?
The only time that the Holy Spirit can be depicted is in the icon of the Baptism of Christ where He appears in the "form" of a dove. The Holy Spirit was NOT incarnate into a bird. Only the Son was incarnate and hence we can depict Him as a man (theanthropos=Godman)
@@Trisagionfilms sincere question, I know we can depict the Son, Christ. However I've always wondered does it matter what ethnicity he is depicted as? Can he be depicted as Asian (Japanese) or sub saharan or native American etc, etc..?
The point of depicting Christ is that we depict who he was, and he wasn't Asian or Sub Saharan or northern European. While its good to not get bogged down in skin tones, it is also essential to depict him approximately to where He was from because He walked on earth and He was born to a human mother, he was flesh and blood, and that is a testament to the reality of his coming to earth. When we all die, we will see him, and he won't look Asian or African or Anglo Saxon; He will look the way a Palestinian looked in those years.
@@Trisagionfilms okay that makes perfect sense I've just always wondered what the orthodox position was on how we depict Christ. Thank you for your response
What about when Christ says he who has seen me has seen the father. (When Phillip asks Christ to show him the father.). Not trying to start an argument, just honestly curious.
"I and the Father are one." “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” “Am I with you all for so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip?- the one having seen Me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? I am not speaking the words which I am saying to you from Myself, but the Father abiding in Me is doing His works.
The only times it's okay are at the baptism of Christ and a particular image of a scene from the Book of Revelation that is sometimes seen in Churches. Other than that, it's not correct to depict the Father or the Holy Spirit because neither became flesh. That was the whole point of iconography being valid: The Word of God took on flesh and could now be seen. You usually see them in churches built in the 19th and early to mid-20th century. It's not so common today.
@@Trisagionfilms Still quite a confusing topic tho because we too often see depictions of angels, holy spirit and the trinity ( as far as i know the channel profile picture is trinity depicted as angels ). Would like to hear more if more content can be made on the topic of iconography.
Isn’t saying that the Father is too great to be seen belittles the Son as some lesser deity? I strongly disagree with that rationale. Who is the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 of whom the Son of man was approaching? If it’s both the son what’s to then stop the modalist saying the father and the son is just God depicting himself in different modes at the same time if this is how Daniel 7 is explained?
While I personally believe that God the Father shouldn’t be depicted in images. I do think that there is a solid case for its permissibility based in scripture
And yet the Jew would never dare depict him... and they knew the scripture very well. If you would like an in-depth look at who the "ancient of days" is according to the ancient Christian fathers(by majority) i recommend this article. www.dropbox.com/sh/ajx7ggi7mnq9mx6/AADLKMcDMJVDvSeoDbXZG7kOa?dl=0
@@Trisagionfilms thank you for the article. I think that the ancient of days was a Jewish symbol of their God and while we can argue that the Lord also deserves the title, I think it would be a bit biased if we were to deny that the ancient of days in the original context was supposed to be God the Father. Now, if it is God the Father being symbolized then I have a hard time denying the ability to depict Him with an equal symbol in an icon. Again, I don’t like it because it gives the simple believers a skewed impression of God. However, if we concede that the Father is the ancient of days we have lost any logical way to say that it’s illicit
First, my point was that the Jews never depicted God, never. So he was only a oral "symbol" for them. And secondly, the Orthodox fathers(Ancient Church Fathers) considered that the "Ancient of Days" in Daniel was the Word. The article I gave you explains that. That is why in orthodox iconography, the "Ancient of Days," 99% of the time, is a depiction of Jesus Christ. This is the Patristic understanding. And by this, I mean before western influence on the Orthodox world, then we see all the images of God the Father with a white beard, and so on. But today there is an attempt to correct that.
@@Trisagionfilms as the article states, the early fathers saw the ancient of days as God the father, later on fathers began to see Christ as both figures. If the ancient of days is God the Father then, whether we personally like it or not, we make an image of God the Father every time we read Daniel 7, a mental image
I think you missed the point. The early Church fathers, after a few generations, as theology developed and they poured through the scriptures, realized that they were the same person, and all of Orthodox theology and Iconography developed based on that theology. You can't just change that because you might like one interpretation over the other. We follow the core fathers and their theology. Beyond that, you can believe whatever you like. But the fact remains that we always depict Christ as the Ancient of Days. Christ even appears with white hair in the book of revelation to John.
Jacob wrestled God. God the Holy Trinity already had an image. Of which we were made in. Also, the Three Angels of the LORD visited Abraham. Abraham fell to the ground and declared them God.
But are not angels made not of flesh? Like the Father? They do not have earthly bodies like Christ but of matter incomprehensible by own mans understanding? Yet we depict them in our images.
Because angels have appeared to us many times. That is why we depict them in icons. They have often taken human form. not to mention the visions in the old testament that describes them with many eyes and many wings... and angels are not as important to our theology as the Trinity.
Read Hebrews 1 1-3...Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,..... etc.. Jesus is the image.....Fully God fully man.. He's One God not 2.... Jesus is the same essence ...Why would you even need another image....??? The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father....He's One God
To call a mere error of artistic and theological judgement, following the fashion of an era without blasphemous intention, a straight out 'sin' goes too far. From that stance it's only a step away from another wave of 'Islamized' iconcoclasm. The reasoning against iconography of the 'father' as an actual human fatherfigure is sound, but there's a reason why it took 1500 years to reach it.
God cannot be seen because he's not a person! Just how childish is that? He's the omnipresent void that exists everywhere. How can you paint "Nothingness"? True idolatry is when we try to give a form to the formless and believe in it. It is okay to give a symbolic form. So that the mind can meditate on it. That's why Hindus and other religions worship deities. The images is only a tool. It has to be broken in the end.
There is the persons God the Son,God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. No mother. And if you want more information about that and the understanding of the Trinity you can ask an priest to explain it yo you. Have a good day or night.
When I was still a Protestant, and researching Orthodox beliefs, I read John of Damascus' book, "On Holy Images". That book is what totally convinced me of the importance of icons.
Well said art…
Jesus said "he who has seen me has seen the father".
This is borne out on
THE SHROUD OF TURIN
( Gods Handiwork)
☝
Amen☺️🙏🏻☦️
yes, but god the father never become human
God the Father, god the son, and God the holy Spirit look alike. SO whoever see the son he has seen the father that's why Jesus Christ is called son of God. Son always looks like father.
God is light and spirit. Spirit can't be seen but light💡 can be seen. Moses saw God little bit🤏🤏 and God's light reflected in Moses. The Grace on his face.
All ortodox icons are a great gifts for us. A big Thank you for all your brilliant work! God bless you and all! Amen
as a Roman Catholic, i agree, it just feels so wrong to see images of God the Father.
as a Catholic I agree with you!
As a Lutheran I agree
Catholic here, and I agree.
As a Catholic, I agree!
As Orthodox I disagree.
This is the best video Ive seen explaining the use and history of icons within the church! Thank you so much!
Agreed.
Highly educational and enlightening .... thanks for sharing!
We do have the most beautiful churches.
We do! :)
God bless you.Greetings from Greece.
That was a wonderful explanation. Thank you!
Learning so much from these videos. Thank you. Can't get enough and could cheerfully spend all day watching! God bless you and your work.
We are just trying to embrace these icons out of love for them.❤
Genesis 1: 26-27 "And, God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him".
That "yiu may look at my back but not see my face" line sounds a lot like how we view the radiation of the big bang now a days cool!
Iconoclasts need to watch this.
Thank you so much
Thank you, thank you very much from the buttom of our hearts for making these videos. Bless you! And all those who helpt
Thank you so much for your kind words! Please help spread our work around and send people our way in order to help us continue doing this work for many years.
( help us via patreon/paypal but also by simply watching, commenting, subscribing etc)
Thank you, so beautiful.
Excellent break down and explanation. Thanks.
This is my question last night. Me and my fiancé have been discussing this and then it pops here in my recommendation this morning.
Unfortunately this happens with nearly all topics spoken about near your phone or on your text messages. Google is listening lol.
LOVE! FANTASTIC! An excellent catechisis on iconography, the incarnation and why it is not proper to portray God the Father! (Another reason why we should never portray God the Father, especially in this modern “Holy Trinity” icons, is because it confuses those of other religions, such as the Jews and Moslems. They think we worship three separate gods, and they use this against us in their polemics against Christianity.)
Thank you for the informative video.
4:52, St.John of Damascus believed that icons are necessary.
Superb! Wow, I've learned a lot... Thank you for sharing
Yes and we can choose to be Christ like, full of love, compassion, joy and happiness and in prayer, fasting some have been blessed by divine encounters by god etc
It is a miracle indeed...and His love...nothing compares to.
May all be blessed with His infinite love! Amen!
I would really love if you made a video explaining who and what is the Holy Spirit
From Misión Cruz Hermitage in Somerset, Texas. Blessings
I enjoy this video so much thank you for the blessing and wisdom 🙏
what are your thoughts on the Rublev Trinity? the picture in your logo
The Rublev trinity is probably the most theologically correct way to depict the trinity. Because it was an event that sort of hinted to the reality of the trinity. The three angels speaking as one etc etc. At the end of the day it is not an icon of the trinity but rather an icon depicting an event which foretold the revelation of the trinities existence. I hope that answered your question.
Stratis
To add onto what Trisagion Films has said, the icon depicts the story in Genesis when three men came to Abraham and Sarah. It was revealed later on in the story that one of the "men" was actually the Lord Himself while the other two were angels that were sent to Sodom and Gomorah to save Lot. Indeed the icon is expressing the truth of the Trinity that the story hints at with the number of "men" being three. But it's important to note that it was NOT the actual Trinity that appeared as the three men. This would be impossible for the reasons given in the video.
God Bless!☦
We know it matters knowing true lord and most high is above all.
justanotherlikeyou Excellent point! Thank you
Idols are the problem not icons.
Monarquia No Brasil sad the orthodox can't either lol
Mysticfire Denise Lol, yes we can.
Frankly history is on the Orthodox side. There have been icons since the 1st century.
What is a idol is the question?
@@MosesMedinaE Could you give me some 1st or 2nd century references of the use of icons?
Thank you so much.Enlightening.
I am Glad you found it Enlightening! Because it is a huge issue even today. Have a blessed day!
Thank you so much for a wonderful explanation! very enlighting! ☦🛐🙏
Dear friends of Trisagion Films, We need your help and support in order to continue to produce these Films. Please donate through PayPal at www.paypal.com/us/fundraiser/charity/3379869. Your donations are Tax Deductible. Trisagion Films is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization registered with the IRS and the State of Georgia.
So, I've been watching all your videos, and I see you need some support. I just got out of prison, and while I was in my wife took everything from me....
But I hope to be back to work by the end of lent....
I just wanted you guys to know someone cares and wants to help and God willing will be able to someday soon.
I don't know why my caring matters, but....
IDK.
God bless you guys!
May God be with you my friend. Take care of yourself your prayers will do just fine! :)
6:31, making an image of the invisible God.
Beautiful
🙏❤️ thank you for this.
1:31, St. John Damascus quote.
So true that I didn't like looking at images and drawing of GOD in this video... YES HE UNSEEN BY MAN.... BROTHER JAMES 🙏
Amen
Amen !❤️
4:02 the Church believes that it is improper to depict the Father in iconography.
Honestly whenever I saw icons of “The Father” I always felt something that was very wrong about the icon, anyone who owns an icon with “The Father” depicted, get rid of it.
Well said! As a Catholic, I thank you for this .....I think God the Father was too often used as social control and not nearly enough as the Daddy Our Lord called Him. Blessings to all there.
The Father is a Spirit our minds cannot perceive that, no don't do icons of God.. simply know him through Christ 🙏
If you have seen Christ you have seen the father. There is absolutely no need to try and depict what cannot be depicted.
Amin
Who could look at Him? Who could stand in His presence? Beyond comprehension. Un created creator. Beyond form. Beyond time. Beyond ALL earthly comprehension. I , sinner that I am , do not deserve to see Him. That's why he sent the Son.
0:50 Because Christ took Material Body,
Matter Can Be Deified/Spirit Bearing.
1:32 "I do not worship matter, but the creator of matter."
2:26 The Father Cannot Be Seen
4:28 Father's Glory Is Uncapturable
The Incarnation did not involve The Father Incarnating, It Was The Son Who Incarnated.
The Son was Sent By The Father.
6:37 Bodyless, Uncircumscribed (Unlimited) (Unbound), Without Form
An impossible made possible by the LORDS LOVE can only be possible to see GOD
I once saw a hierodeacon explain it thus:
We cannot depict “The Father” (ontological impossibility).
We can depict “The Image of the Father” (“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”).
Yes, we have no need of depicting the Father because if we see Christ we have seen the Father as the hierodeacon wisely said
I've seen many orthodox churches which display the trinity - all pesons, including the Father. The latest were ceiling panels in a church in Athens.
Yes. If Moses had to "not look", then there was something to "not see". I see no prob with depicting the Father, since the Trinity always act in concert.
@@Sennmut nah highly disagree
Physically, of course, He cannot be seen but spiritually He can.
Perfect.
The glory of God can only be seen through the Son
What icon other than Christ himself is a better depiction of God? Through Christ the unseeable God himself revealed him to us and whoever sees Christ see God
That is exactly the point, but some people are confused about this it seems.
What about the Rublev’s Trinity icon ?
That is the most theologically correct way of symbolically depicting the Trinity.
@@Trisagionfilms God bless
Genuine question: Does Andrei Rublev’s Trinity not count as depicting the father because it technically depicts the three visitors to Abraham?
No, because it doesn't try to depict what cannot be described. It shows a moment in history in which three angels appear to Abraham. These angels speak in unison and are there in place of God. Only later, with Christianity, we realize that these angels were to represent the Holy Trinity. So it's a symbolic and historical image that depicts three angels but simultaneously depicts a moment when man and God met. In no way is it saying that the Holy Trinity looks like the angels. Nor that specifically God the father appears like an angel. I hope that helps
@@Trisagionfilms It absolutely helps. Thank you!
If it is indeed sinful, why is there an image of the Father in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral? It is in the center at the very top. I have been there many times.
Just because they have it doesn't mean its ok... Many have been ignoring these things... because its familiar and they don't dig any deeper. This isn't our opinion but that of the fathers of the Church. The Russians themselves have a council that condemns it...
@@Trisagionfilms, papist influence. Jesuits controlled them for a long time. That was their Babylonian captivity.
May it & any & all false beliefs & praxes that have crept in be ruled on & thrown out @ the final, holy Ecumenical Council that will be held after the forthcoming general war (WW3).
GOD BECOME MAN SO THAT GOD COULD BE SEEN ! STUDY THE TRUE ORTHODOX FAITH.
1:22 , does that also explain why miracles can work through icons?
But king David saw Trinity . Also the Holy Spirit came in 🕊 dove
ربنا والهنا يسوع المسيح يا ابن الله الحى ارحمني انا عبدك الخاطئ امين 🙏
Is it ok for the spirit to be depicted on icons as a dove since he chose to appear that way to us? I’m curious what the church teaches on this
The Spirit did not actually become a dove so we have never seen it, it was never incarnate. we don't depict things that never became flesh. Christ the Word became flesh so we depict Him. Some people dont have a problem with the dove but I would say that theologically it isn't correct. Depicting it in the image of theofany as a dove is fine because of the text. But making an icon of a dove and calling it the Holy Spirit is not correct, even if some have done it in the past or still do it now.
"and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." Like a dove, it did not become a dove.
@@Trisagionfilms ah, thanks for the clarification! The video was really informative too, I’m about to become a catechumen and was wondering about how I should feel on icons of the Father 😌
But the Holy Spirit is often represented as a dove or flame, right?
In the baptism of Christ, it has become a tradition to depict the Spirit as a dove because it says, "the Spirit descended like a dove," but that does not mean that the Spirit ever took on a solid form; it did not take on flesh. So we should not depict the Spirit on its own as a dove in an icon, only in the icon of Theofani; there is one other image that illustrates the Spirit as a dove on a throne which I believe symbolizes the throne that the Son will come to when He judges the living and the dead, that also seems to be okay. Still, I would have to look more into it. It is also seen as a flame in Pentecost because it has no tangible form, so iconographers use different ways to show it based on tradition, the scriptures, and theology.
@@Trisagionfilms Very good, thank you. That does make sense to me.
What is your opinion on the Ancient of Days in iconography? I think people often confuse this as a depiction of the Father
The ancient of days is a depiction of the Son. Unfortunately, there has been confusion about what the vision in daniel was. But the ancient fathers understood the Ancient of Days as being the Word and not the Father; that's why the vast majority of Ancient of Days icons are of the Son, as they should be.
@@Trisagionfilms I’m worried that this creates a Nestorian conception of Christ, where the human Christ kneels before and receives his authority from God-Christ. Can it not be that when the Fathers call Christ the Ancient of Days, they mean that in a similar sense to Christ being called by Isaiah, “Everlasting Father”? To call Jesus “Father” doesn’t replace God the Father, nor does calling Christ “Ancient of Days” necessarily replace the Father as Ancient of Days.
What about depicting the Holy Spirit as a dove, is it okay to do?
150 ancient Sebian Ortodox monasteries are destroyed by Albanians in Kosovo , in last 20 years.
Christ is the only icon of the Father. If we were divine ourselves, having been begotten from the Father's being, then we too could depict Him. But seeing how we're not divine we can only depict Christ who became like us in every way except in sin. The icon of the Father must forever remain single and one, that of Christ Himself.
Instead of saying things about Holy Things, we better should “humbly” listen Holy Fathers.
We have a white bearded old man in the central fresco in our church - very likely by a roman catholic painter. It is not canonical but it stays due to historical reasons (even though I prefer not to look at it as it distracts me).
The Holy Spirit though incarnated as a white dove so it is just right to depict like that, am I mistaken?
The only time that the Holy Spirit can be depicted is in the icon of the Baptism of Christ where He appears in the "form" of a dove. The Holy Spirit was NOT incarnate into a bird. Only the Son was incarnate and hence we can depict Him as a man (theanthropos=Godman)
@@Trisagionfilms sincere question, I know we can depict the Son, Christ. However I've always wondered does it matter what ethnicity he is depicted as? Can he be depicted as Asian (Japanese) or sub saharan or native American etc, etc..?
The point of depicting Christ is that we depict who he was, and he wasn't Asian or Sub Saharan or northern European. While its good to not get bogged down in skin tones, it is also essential to depict him approximately to where He was from because He walked on earth and He was born to a human mother, he was flesh and blood, and that is a testament to the reality of his coming to earth. When we all die, we will see him, and he won't look Asian or African or Anglo Saxon; He will look the way a Palestinian looked in those years.
@@Trisagionfilms okay that makes perfect sense I've just always wondered what the orthodox position was on how we depict Christ. Thank you for your response
Ο Χριστός είπε.αυτος που έχει δει εμένα,έχει δει τον Πατέρα.
Awesome video. God did tell Moses , i will cover u with my hand and u may see my back. sounds like he has a body
What about when Christ says he who has seen me has seen the father. (When Phillip asks Christ to show him the father.). Not trying to start an argument, just honestly curious.
Nicholas, I think that Christ was speaking about the Wisdom of God and His mercy. Not his face. May God bless you.
"I and the Father are one." “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” “Am I with you all for so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip?- the one having seen Me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? I am not speaking the words which I am saying to you from Myself, but the Father abiding in Me is doing His works.
Jesus is
The Embodiment of God
The One Who Died and
Now Lives.
JESUS IS GOD'S FACE
6:18 But many orthodox churches depict holy spirit in form of a dove?
The only times it's okay are at the baptism of Christ and a particular image of a scene from the Book of Revelation that is sometimes seen in Churches. Other than that, it's not correct to depict the Father or the Holy Spirit because neither became flesh. That was the whole point of iconography being valid: The Word of God took on flesh and could now be seen. You usually see them in churches built in the 19th and early to mid-20th century. It's not so common today.
@@Trisagionfilms Thanks for the response!
@@Trisagionfilms Still quite a confusing topic tho because we too often see depictions of angels, holy spirit and the trinity ( as far as i know the channel profile picture is trinity depicted as angels ). Would like to hear more if more content can be made on the topic of iconography.
GOD is Great!
GOD is Most Great!
GOD is The Greatest!
Isn’t saying that the Father is too great to be seen belittles the Son as some lesser deity? I strongly disagree with that rationale. Who is the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 of whom the Son of man was approaching? If it’s both the son what’s to then stop the modalist saying the father and the son is just God depicting himself in different modes at the same time if this is how Daniel 7 is explained?
While I personally believe that God the Father shouldn’t be depicted in images. I do think that there is a solid case for its permissibility based in scripture
And yet the Jew would never dare depict him... and they knew the scripture very well. If you would like an in-depth look at who the "ancient of days" is according to the ancient Christian fathers(by majority) i recommend this article. www.dropbox.com/sh/ajx7ggi7mnq9mx6/AADLKMcDMJVDvSeoDbXZG7kOa?dl=0
@@Trisagionfilms thank you for the article. I think that the ancient of days was a Jewish symbol of their God and while we can argue that the Lord also deserves the title, I think it would be a bit biased if we were to deny that the ancient of days in the original context was supposed to be God the Father. Now, if it is God the Father being symbolized then I have a hard time denying the ability to depict Him with an equal symbol in an icon. Again, I don’t like it because it gives the simple believers a skewed impression of God. However, if we concede that the Father is the ancient of days we have lost any logical way to say that it’s illicit
First, my point was that the Jews never depicted God, never. So he was only a oral "symbol" for them. And secondly, the Orthodox fathers(Ancient Church Fathers) considered that the "Ancient of Days" in Daniel was the Word. The article I gave you explains that. That is why in orthodox iconography, the "Ancient of Days," 99% of the time, is a depiction of Jesus Christ. This is the Patristic understanding. And by this, I mean before western influence on the Orthodox world, then we see all the images of God the Father with a white beard, and so on. But today there is an attempt to correct that.
@@Trisagionfilms as the article states, the early fathers saw the ancient of days as God the father, later on fathers began to see Christ as both figures. If the ancient of days is God the Father then, whether we personally like it or not, we make an image of God the Father every time we read Daniel 7, a mental image
I think you missed the point. The early Church fathers, after a few generations, as theology developed and they poured through the scriptures, realized that they were the same person, and all of Orthodox theology and Iconography developed based on that theology. You can't just change that because you might like one interpretation over the other. We follow the core fathers and their theology. Beyond that, you can believe whatever you like. But the fact remains that we always depict Christ as the Ancient of Days. Christ even appears with white hair in the book of revelation to John.
Jacob wrestled God. God the Holy Trinity already had an image. Of which we were made in.
Also, the Three Angels of the LORD visited Abraham. Abraham fell to the ground and declared them God.
But , who was seen .
Christ... Christ was seen the Word of God
But are not angels made not of flesh? Like the Father? They do not have earthly bodies like Christ but of matter incomprehensible by own mans understanding? Yet we depict them in our images.
Because angels have appeared to us many times. That is why we depict them in icons. They have often taken human form. not to mention the visions in the old testament that describes them with many eyes and many wings... and angels are not as important to our theology as the Trinity.
@@Trisagionfilms
Yes
Yes
Yes
It always
Read Hebrews 1 1-3...Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,..... etc.. Jesus is the image.....Fully God fully man.. He's One God not 2.... Jesus is the same essence ...Why would you even need another image....??? The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father....He's One God
To call a mere error of artistic and theological judgement, following the fashion of an era without blasphemous intention, a straight out 'sin' goes too far.
From that stance it's only a step away from another wave of 'Islamized' iconcoclasm.
The reasoning against iconography of the 'father' as an actual human fatherfigure is sound, but there's a reason why it took 1500 years to reach it.
Icons that depict God the Father are certainly blasphemous. God qua God cannot be depicted because he is infinite, transcendent.
Colour issues in racist world-Do t h e icons assist or resist racism?
THEY OBVIOUSLY RESIST
♥️
@Bert Clayton ... Forgive him, he is AMERICAN...
No just know real messiah solves it right makes a difference greater he within you because might be only christ seen in yourself..
God cannot be seen because he's not a person! Just how childish is that?
He's the omnipresent void that exists everywhere. How can you paint "Nothingness"?
True idolatry is when we try to give a form to the formless and believe in it. It is okay to give a symbolic form. So that the mind can meditate on it. That's why Hindus and other religions worship deities. The images is only a tool. It has to be broken in the end.
There is no trinity there is only one there is only the father who has no mother no son nor any partner.
There is the persons God the Son,God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. No mother. And if you want more information about that and the understanding of the Trinity you can ask an priest to explain it yo you. Have a good day or night.