N
Niki7
Guest
Yes. I did say that. I used "feminine" as an adverb for the verb "to sit", not as a qualificative adjective for Jesus Christ...
Yes. I did say that. I used "feminine" as an adverb for the verb "to sit", not as a qualificative adjective for Jesus Christ...
No I am not misunderstanding. I don't have to agree with how these items are venerated, which does not mean I do not understand. I appreciate art, but religious art not so much.
Jesus Messiah will be arriving on a war-steed later on. Later on.....but soon. And not side-saddle.Jesus entered Jerusalem on a young DONKEY. This icon is someone's idea of Jesus? Nonsense
People who were not there have decided how it went down. Of course and since women rode side saddle at a certain time, then of course Jesus must have also. Who cares what the church dictates when they get so much wrong
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.
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.
I have a curiosity: do you reject any depiction of Jesus Christ or only the iconic depiction of Him?
I was considering attending an Eastern Orthodox Church at one time. I was wondering if you comment on this:I belong nominally to the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church One is the Church before the Great Schism.
I am ecumenical and believe we should all (this includes my Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters) return to the sources of Christianity in order to understand our faith and know the real, living God.
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.
"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. I did say that. I used "feminine" as an adverb for the verb "to sit", not as a qualificative adjective for Jesus Christ...
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.
"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.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.
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.
No I am not misunderstanding. I don't have to agree with how these items are venerated, which does not mean I do not understand. I appreciate art, but religious art not so much.
you guys are misunderstanding. Simona pointed out an aspect of the iconography -- this type of art communicates in a language of symbols. the artist deliberately chose a meek & lowly riding posture to communicate our Lord's character when He humbled Himself to become a man and serve us, rather than come in glory and power to be served.
it is not meant to be representative of how Jesus actually physically sat nor is it in any way meant to challenge His manhood, but to teach through imagery things about His person and works.
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.
Might enjoy some of the Catholics too.Hello @Simona1988 . I see that you’ve been registered here for a while but maybe took a break from posting.
Welcome.
I hope that you will enjoy many of the Protestants here.
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.

https://christianchat.com/threads/pagan-beauty-vs-christian-beauty.210414/post-5054316Yes 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
i read posts.
do they not convey your thoughts?