Pagan beauty vs Christian beauty

We don't agree. You will just have leave it there and kindly do not say I despise something because I do not agree. You had to know that people would have something to say when you created the op.

I have a curiosity: do you reject any depiction of Jesus Christ or only the iconic depiction of Him?

Jesus Messiah will be arriving on a war-steed later on. Later on.....but soon. And not side-saddle.

"In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys if they came in peace. First Kings 1:33 mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel. Other instances of leaders riding donkeys are Judges 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; and 2 Samuel 16:2.

The mention of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9-10 fits the description of a king who would be “righteous and having salvation, gentle.” Rather than riding to conquer, this king would enter in peace."

Yes. That's the reason I created this. To share with people something I believed is worth sharing.
You are right, "despise" is too much; maybe "lack of consideration" would be more appropriate. This is how I received your message: with a sort of condescendence towards me, my post, the icon and the church. Maybe I was mistaken and you wrote in a completely different spirit than the one I sensed.

What is it exactly you think you are going to find? Depict Jesus as He is in Revelation and then get back to me about side saddle.

I was considering attending an Eastern Orthodox Church at one time. I was wondering if you comment on this:
Is a priest simply a presbyteros but called by another name ie "priest"?
I worry that a peerage type hierarchy per se (bishops and priests etc) encroaches upon the "deeds of the Nicolaitans" admonition.....among other things.

"Presbyter is, in the Bible, a synonym for bishop (episkopos), referring to a leader in local church congregations. In modern Eastern Orthodox usage, it is distinct from bishop and "synonymous with priest." (?????) Its literal meaning in Greek (presbyteros) is "elder".

Holy orders
Married Eastern Orthodox priest from Jerusalem with his family.
Through the sacrament of holy orders, an ordination to priesthood is performed by the bishop. But this requires the consent of the whole people of God, so at a point in the service, the congregation acclaim the ordination by shouting "Axios!" ("He is worthy!").

Orthodox priests consist of both married clergy and celibate clergy. In the Orthodox Church a married man may be ordained to the priesthood. His marriage, however, must be the first for both him and his wife. He may not remarry and continue in his ministry even if his wife should die.

This might be a problem as well.

"If a single, or unmarried, or celibate, man is ordained, he must remain celibate to retain his service."

BTW.....some here opine that you MUST be married to be a pastor. I do not think that this notion has the support of Scripture.

Yes. That's right. We seldom use the word presbyteros...

I had to look up the Nicolaitan sect and what I found isn't related to the hierarchy in church.

This is in theory... because in practice... it's a different story. All priests and deacons I know are married. Monks are celibate. And the bishops are elected from monks.

cv5 said:

"If a single, or unmarried, or celibate, man is ordained, he must remain celibate to retain his service."

Click to expand...

Men who want to become priests first marry and then become priests.

It doesn't. But it's very much advised because it's less tempting.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that if you state a man or woman is sitting in either a feminine or masculine way you are making as statement about the person as well.

As well we cannot say that way of sitting is feminine for that time period, unless you know something in ancient literature/research/scripture that would make it clear.

It's my poor choice of words. Next time, I'll be more careful.

I am glad that is not what you were meaning to say, thank you, there are some strange things here on CC so I was just being overly cautious.

"Deeds of the Nicolaitans".....it was an heretical distortion of Church government in effect. You can research the matter a little more to gain a better understanding of it.

Thanks for the response. Does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a "Pope"?
What is their view of eschatology?
1) Do they understand the "rapture of the Church" as a fact (pre-trib)?
2) Do they understand the future redemption of the nation Israel?
3) Do they recognize that that the Church age (this age) is unique and limited in time span?

You see, I am presently not attending Church. As I have yet to find a pre-trib rapture, premillennial Church that is NOT ecumenical (the true Church is built up one-by-one, not by "absorbing" any other corpus or group or so-called denomination).

What i think you are misunderstanding is whether the intent of the OP was to venerate an image and whether that image was designed to be representative or whether it was meant to coney a narrative through symbolism.

even if you are an iconoclast your previous messages indicate you misjudged the intent: there are clear differences in the visual language of the two artworks in the OP, and they mirror the clear difference between the appearing of human kings and if the True King of kings.

riding side-saddle is a well known symbol indicating peace rather than war. Christ in His first advent came merk and lowly, humbling Himself, taking the form of a servant, to bring us peace, to reconcile us to Himself, and that's what is being shown. there is no intent of effeminacy and no intent of photorealism.

Yes I see your point, however if he was riding a colt into the city is it really a statement about being meek and lowly, after all a colt is typically an untrained horse.

Perhaps this is a narrative that has been perpetuated over time and not really accurate.

I think he was just being true to His station in life,nothing more and nothing less.

Do you read minds? If not, then please do not try to read my mind. There are clear differences in my responses and your thoughts about them. If people wish to venerate wood with a painting on them, that is there choice

What part of I understand but do not care to venerate anything on this earth do you not understand?

smh

Might enjoy some of the Catholics too.

sitting side-saddle is a good way to fall off your horse if you are riding into battle.



here is a 6th century BC vase showing the greek deity Hepaestus riding side-saddle on a donkey. in this case the mythology is that he is crippled - so he cannot ride astride.

other ancient images also women sidesaddle - so there is evidence of a very old tradition of those who are meek and lowly in the world depicted this way, not just women for the sake of dignity as we see later in medieval periods & the renaissance.

https://christianchat.com/threads/pagan-beauty-vs-christian-beauty.210414/post-5054316
I have already posted this factoid. It is a very well known and understood near-eastern phenomenon.

"Jesus Messiah will be arriving on a war-steed later on. Later on.....but soon. And not side-saddle.

"In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys if they came in peace. First Kings 1:33 mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel. Other instances of leaders riding donkeys are Judges 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; and 2 Samuel 16:2.

The mention of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9-10 fits the description of a king who would be “righteous and having salvation, gentle.” Rather than riding to conquer, this king would enter in peace.""

i read posts.
do they not convey your thoughts?

icon, in Eastern Christian tradition, a representation of sacred personages or events in mural painting, mosaic, or wood. After the Iconoclastic Controversy of the 8th–9th century, which disputed the religious function and meaning of icons, the Eastern Orthodox Church formulated the doctrinal basis for their veneration: since God assumed material form in the person of Jesus Christ, he could be represented in pictures.

Moscow: Kremlin
Icons are considered an essential part of the church and are given special liturgical veneration. They serve as mediums of instruction for the uneducated faithful through the iconostasis, a screen shielding the altar, covered with icons depicting scenes from the New Testament, church feasts, and popular saints. In the classical Byzantine and Orthodox tradition, iconography is not a realistic but a symbolical art, and its function is to express in line and colour the theological teaching of the church.

Icons are traditionally painted on a wooden board with egg tempera, which needs to be applied to a firm surface to prevent it from cracking upon drying. The wooden panel is usually prepared with several coats of white gesso (a thick preparation of white pigment, such as gypsum, in an adhesive base). As many as eight coats of gesso are used to prepare the “ground.” A line drawing is then transferred to the ground or incised with a needle, and any gold necessary for halos or the background is gilded; real gold is usually used. The sacred image is then painted in earth tones of natural minerals, the darker colours added first and then lighter colours and detailing. The natural minerals give transparency, and the white ground reflects the light back through the layers of tempera, creating the effect of luminosity in the icon. Once fully dried, the icon is coated with a varnish such as olipha (a mixture of linseed oil and stand oil).


I do not venerate icons nor do I see them as a part of my worship. This neither means that I despise them or misunderstand there usage.

Apparently you seem to think they convey your thoughts of my posts. Thanks for asking and wisdom would dictate you just let this go because I don't wish to argue with anyone and especially not people who refuse an explanation from the person they ask it of and then proceed to tell that same person they understand better what was written than did the person who wrote whatever.

Not answering your assertions or opinions again.