Am I a heretic?

[Dewi Sant]

I am currently writing an essay on the trinity and am having to study the heresies in order to gain a grasp of the meaning.

However, as I read about the heretics, it makes me feel more and more like a heretic myself.

I believe thus:

That there is one God.
God is the Father.

Now, I believe there is a problem with the terminology of the trinity.
When I refer to 'the Father', I don't mean the part of the trinity called 'the Father', but rather, the wholeness, the oneness of God. God complete, as one, undivided and undividable.
I shall differentiate by writing the 'Father' with a bold 'F' and the trinity 'Father' with a non-boldened 'F'.

So, there is the 'Father' and if we were to look at the Godhead (Father) in a trinitarian sense, we have the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...yes? Is that canonical?

The Father and the Son are related in such the same way that the Son and the Holy Spirit are related. I also say that the Holy Spirit and the Father are related also, directly, not through the Son. There is no 'Proceeds from the Father and the Son' going on here.
It is a perfect triangle.

Each part of the trinity is its own persona but not its own substance, for the substance is one and is God, the 'Father'.



When we make the prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven...' I am under the impression we are praying to 'Our Father' and not just 'Our Father'.

I suppose my theology, be it heretical or not may be an over reaction to subordinism, which I am strongly against. No part of the Trinity can be of higher heirarchy than the other, or else it is imperfect and therefore not God. God contains no impurity, nor is He a three stepped pyramid.

In my view, it wouldn't be totally wrong to say, Holy Spirit, Father, and Son. The constant saying of 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' seems to suggest that the 'Father' is the first and foremost.

Also, I believe that all persons of the Trinity are without beginning or cause.


Your Screaming Heretic,
Chris


(get the stake and hay ready)

[choirfiend]

Yes, i think your understanding/beliefs on the Trinity are messed up. But I dont think you're a heretic.
Go to your priest and ask him to help you understand the little that the ORthodox teach about the nature of the Trinity.

[Knowledge3]

God is a Triune God of 3 persons in one Godhead. yet the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ: (Colossians 2.9) For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and the Father and Holy Ghost are also one in essence. Me being Chalcedon-compliant, Christ the second person of the orthodox Trinity has two natures, both divine and human. There is also no confusion,mingling,commingling of these two natures.

I formally reject the Filioque.

God is Trinitarian, (Father,Son,and Holy Ghost)

[Dewi Sant]

The sad thing is that I can't see a priest for about three weeks.

I guess the answer is to pay for the trainfare (£35) to go to the nearest monastery.
I guess I could go this Friday.

My Spiritual father is currently in New York and he is also the person who arranges the Divine Liturgies in this town.


Just as a question.

Is the Father meant to be understood as being the same as the Father?
That the ones the Jews call 'Father' is the same as the Father in the trinity and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are revealed but nevertheless existing at all time in unity with the Father?

In other words, did the Jews only know of the first person of the Trinity?


BTW, I hate saying 'First, Second, Third,' persons of the Trinity, but it is something that comes up a lot. Especcially the Son being referred to as the 'Second'.

[Dewi Sant]

I wasn't saying that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of different essence...quite the opposite. I was emphasising the point that they are three persona in one essence.

Christ does indeed have two essences, the essence of God (as does the Father and the Holy Spirit) but also a body incarnate.

[Knowledge3]

I recommend that you study Scripture and read St. Athanasius on the Incarnation: here is a link; http://www.monachos.net/library/Athanasius_of_Alexandria%2C_On_the_Incarnation_of_the_Word

[Dewi Sant]

Thanks for the link.

After I've handed this essay in, I think there is much prayer due on my part.


The sad thing is, this is how I've always understood the trinity, and, at least in my interpretation of it, it stands well against heresies, but, if it is a heresy in itself, then that is self evident. No two heresies are identical.


I don't believe I have a problem with the incarnation.
It is mainly 'The Father' which I have a problem with.

Whether the 'Father' is the same as the 'Father' or not.

[Knowledge3]

Just be cautious about modalism and try to limit the human-sense of numbering 1,2,3 of the Trinity.

Good luck. :priest:

[Dewi Sant]

Just found this quite interesting.
It is from wikipedia...so it definatly cannot go in my essay:

The First Council of Nicaea in 325 debated the terms homoousios and homoiousios. The word homoousios means "same substance", whereas the word homoiousios means "similar substance". The council affirmed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Godhead) are of the homoousious (same substance). This is the source of the English idiom "differ not by one iota." Note that the words homoousios and homoiousios differ only by one 'i' (or the Greek letter iota). Thus, to say two things differ not one iota, is to say that they are the same substance.

[Knowledge3]

I don't believe I have a problem with the incarnation.
It is mainly 'The Father' which I have a problem with.

Whether the 'Father' is the same as the 'Father' or not.

Understand that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son with the Holy Ghost.

think:idea: (pure trinitarian orthodoxy)

[Dewi Sant]

the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son with the Holy Ghost.


????

I didn't think that the three personas were intermingled as such. I thought that they are of one essence (Homoousias) within the Godhead.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit is not the Son.



I think I'm having trouble grasping this subject.

Forgive me if I offend.

[Knowledge3]

Each person of the Christian Trinity is God and co-equal (έσος) and same (ίδιος) (homoousious) in essence.

Remember that our human minds are limited in being able understand the divine things, let alone perceive them.

[Nickolai]

I am currently writing an essay on the trinity and am having to study the heresies in order to gain a grasp of the meaning.

However, as I read about the heretics, it makes me feel more and more like a heretic myself.

I believe thus:

That there is one God.
God is the Father.

Now, I believe there is a problem with the terminology of the trinity.
When I refer to 'the Father', I don't mean the part of the trinity called 'the Father', but rather, the wholeness, the oneness of God. God complete, as one, undivided and undividable.
I shall differentiate by writing the 'Father' with a bold 'F' and the trinity 'Father' with a non-boldened 'F'.

So, there is the 'Father' and if we were to look at the Godhead (Father) in a trinitarian sense, we have the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...yes? Is that canonical?

The Father and the Son are related in such the same way that the Son and the Holy Spirit are related. I also say that the Holy Spirit and the Father are related also, directly, not through the Son. There is no 'Proceeds from the Father and the Son' going on here.
It is a perfect triangle.

Each part of the trinity is its own persona but not its own substance, for the substance is one and is God, the 'Father'.



When we make the prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven...' I am under the impression we are praying to 'Our Father' and not just 'Our Father'.

I suppose my theology, be it heretical or not may be an over reaction to subordinism, which I am strongly against. No part of the Trinity can be of higher heirarchy than the other, or else it is imperfect and therefore not God. God contains no impurity, nor is He a three stepped pyramid.

In my view, it wouldn't be totally wrong to say, Holy Spirit, Father, and Son. The constant saying of 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' seems to suggest that the 'Father' is the first and foremost.

Also, I believe that all persons of the Trinity are without beginning or cause.


Your Screaming Heretic,
Chris


(get the stake and hay ready)

You can't divide the Trinity into parts. Each Person (hypostasis, not persona) of the Trinity is distinct, but they are all God, not part of God. "The Personal (Hypostatical) attributes of the Trinity are: the Father is unbegotton; the Son pre-eternally begotton; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" (Paraphrase of Fr. Michael Pomazansky) They all share the same essence (homoousious), but the Father is the "source" of the essence. And is also the "source" for both the begetting of the Person of the Son and the procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit. However to quote St. John Damascene “Although we have been taught that there is a distinction between begetting and procession, what this distinction consists of, and what is the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father — this we do not know" (St. John Damascene).

Now I realize that probably made no sense at all, but that is a quick rundown of our understanding of the hierarchy of the Trinity.

A couple books that i could recommend to you are The Mystery of the Trinity by Boris Bobrinskoy, and Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky. The latter book can be found online here (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm).

I hoped that helped a little bit. My understanding of the Trinity is lacking quite a bit myself, and I am not always very good at articulating finer points of theology, but I gave it a shot.

In Christ,
Reader Nikolai

[Jacob4707]

The sad thing is that I can't see a priest for about three weeks.

I guess the answer is to pay for the trainfare (£35) to go to the nearest monastery.
I guess I could go this Friday.

My Spiritual father is currently in New York and he is also the person who arranges the Divine Liturgies in this town.


Just as a question.

Is the Father meant to be understood as being the same as the Father?
That the ones the Jews call 'Father' is the same as the Father in the trinity and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are revealed but nevertheless existing at all time in unity with the Father?

In other words, did the Jews only know of the first person of the Trinity?

I think it depends on what you mean by "know." Some see the epiphanies of God in the Old Testament as being an appearance of the pre-incarnate Son. And Jude 5 has a textual variant that is now apparently being accepted by textual scholars, instead of being relegated to the critical apparatus. The current NA-27 text reads "[ho] kyrios," but the consensus is apparently to now accept the reading "Iêsous" - i.e., JESUS saved the people from Egypt. Thus, even if they didn't "know" that it was the Son of God and not God the Father doing these things, the God they "knew" was at times God the Son.

[Akathist]

E3, (edited: yes, I meant K3)

Please please please, you are not ready to be teaching anything. Use this time to learn only. If needed, take a break from the internet for a bit to focus on only learning for now.

Ramesis:

I see no modalism in your description myself.

Understanding the Trinity is extremly difficult for any of us as much of it is a mystery. Try sending an email to Fr. Gregory (who is on staff) to see if he could help you a bit until you can speak with your Spiritual Father.

You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God. St. Gregory the Theologian

It is the Father to Whom all existence owes its origin. In Christ and through Christ He is the source of all. In contrast to all else He is self-existent. He does not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in Himself. He is infinite, for nothing contains Him and He contains all things; He is eternally unconditioned by space, for He is illimitable; eternally anterior to time, for time is His creation. Let imagination range to what you may suppose is God's utmost limit, and you will find Him present there; strain as you will there is always a further horizon towards which to strain. Infinity is His property, just as the power of making such effort is yours. Words will l fail you, but His being will not be circumscribed. St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 2

Here is a source to read: http://oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book=Doctrine&section=The%20Holy%20Trinity

A quote from that: Thus, the Church teaches that while there is only One God, yet there are Three who are God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- perfectly united and never divided yet not merged into one with no proper distinction.

Thus, according to the Orthodox Tradition, it is the mystery of God that there are Three who are divine; Three who live and act by one and the same divine perfection, yet each according to his own personal distinctness and uniqueness. Thus it is said that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each divine with the same divinity, yet each in his own divine way. And as the uncreated divinity has three divine subjects, so each divine action has three divine actors; there are three divine aspects to every action of God, yet the action remains one and the same.


see also: http://oca.org/QA.asp?ID=18&SID=3

Also: http://www.orthodox.clara.net/trinity.htm (This btw, is Fr. Gregory's website with contact information.)

[Jacob4707]

E3,

Please please please, you are not ready to be teaching anything.

You mean "K(nowledge)3," right?

[Knowledge3]

I'm not teaching but exegeting what I've learned.

God is (Father,Son,and Holy Spirit) (pure trinitarian orthodoxy) (3 in 1 and 1 in 3)

[Knowledge3]

http://www.wellesley.edu/Russian/scans/rublev1.jpg

[Eusebios]

Rameses,
Your exposition of Trinitarian doctrine may be slightly distorted, but as Akathist rightly points out, this is a most difficult concept for us to grasp in our human frailty and finiteness of mind.
It does not however make you a heretic. In order to be a heretic, one must have had an orthodox position and then willingly reject it. You have not done so.
In Xp,
Eusebios
:bow:

[Jacob4707]

http://www.wellesley.edu/Russian/scans/rublev1.jpg


Posting illicit icons, eh? :)

[Dewi Sant]

I thank you all for your wondeful answers.



I believe I am starting to see things a little more clearly and as usual, I am starting to see how little I know.

I find it difficult to read anything longer than about a page on a computer screen, so I'll check which books are in my college library and take them out.

I considered myself to be almost free from Protestant doctrine by making myself totally open to that of the East, but, this must be one of those things which have lain under the surface and have influenced much of what I have learnt.
I suppose it was drilled into me that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons and that we pray to 'Our Father'. In that sense, I can understand a little of my error.
I'm not saying that Protestant theology is wrong or bad, I appreciate my theological upbringing, but now I am seeing lights greater than those of my past.


I thank you all again.
Chris


BTW,
I wasn't offended by any of K3's posts. I appreciate them, though I too know that he, like me is just a young child in the faith. We can only speculate but not know.

Also, I'm not much of a fan of Andrei Rublev's depiction of the visitation being taken as a visual aid to the Trinity. It, unfortunatly for me, suggests three very distinct persons in an almost conversation-like manner. This I now appreciate is not as it is meant to be seen.


Oh! To be like the peasant who says "I know there's a God, because my Priest says so".

The bane of the Theology student.

[ma2000]

Posting illicit icons, eh? :)
He stole it from Tretyakov Gallery, Moskow!!!:eek:

[Jacob4707]

He stole it from Tretyakov Gallery, Moskow!!!:eek:

I meant the fact that it "depicts" God the Father. That is seen by some to be counter to Orthodox doctrine. The largest Orthodox Church in Dallas, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, has a mosaic of this icon over the doorway into the church (with Abraham and Sarah included, though):

http://www.pbase.com/rospotte/image/58651238/original

[Knowledge3]

Posting illicit icons, eh? :)

Actually, the original trinitarian image is authentic and traditional.

I'm not sure about the "source" because I cherry-picked it from google. :priest:

[ma2000]

I meant the fact that it "depicts" God the Father. That is seen by some to be counter to Orthodox doctrine. The largest Orthodox Church in Dallas, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, has a mosaic of this icon over the doorway into the church (with Abraham and Sarah included, though):

http://www.pbase.com/rospotte/image/58651238/original
I was joking, KATHXOYMENOC. As far as I know, the Old Testament representation, like the one by St Andrei Rublev, is the only one permitted.

[Jacob4707]

Actually, the original trinitarian image is authentic and traditional.

I'm not sure about the "source" because I cherry-picked it from google. :priest:

I meant that it's "illicit" to depict God the Father, not that your means of obtaining it was improper. :)

[Akathist]

I thank you all for your wondeful answers.



I believe I am starting to see things a little more clearly and as usual, I am starting to see how little I know.

I find it difficult to read anything longer than about a page on a computer screen, so I'll check which books are in my college library and take them out.

.

Doctrine: An Elementary Handbook of the Orthodox Church (The Orthodox Faith, Volume 1) by Fr. Thomas Hopko (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-9494825-1363812?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Fr.%20Thomas%20Hopko) (Author), John Matusiak (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-9494825-1363812?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20Matusiak) (Illustrator)

Paperback
Publisher: Orthodox Church in America R.E. Dept.; 2nd Edition Revised (1997) edition (1997)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0866420363
ISBN-13: 978-0866420365

I suggest using the ISBN number to see if you can't get inner library loan to find this source for you.

[Dewi Sant]

This shines an even greater light on the Filioque controversy for me.

Correct me at any point should I be incorrect.

Assuming that the Father of the Trinity is the Father that has always been and always referred to in the bible, then the passage from the nicene creed is an even more delicate thing than I thought.

'And the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (and the Son)"

In that case.

Does that mean that this diagram from one of my theology textbooks by Alister E. McGrath (Christian Theology, An Introduction) explains the point?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Christopher88/trinity.jpg
Also, what does 'breathes' mean in this sense; and also, what could 'beget' mean?
I assumed that the Holy Spirit was also begotton, but, that is what I used to think.

I open my heart.

[Dewi Sant]

We don't seem to have any of Hopko's works in our library :(.

Hopefully that will change as we are having an Orthodox department created.

[Jacob4707]

This shines an even greater light on the Filioque controversy for me.

Correct me at any point should I be incorrect.

Assuming that the Father of the Trinity is the Father that has always been and always referred to in the bible, then the passage from the nicene creed is an even more delicate thing than I thought.

'And the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (and the Son)"

In that case.

Does that mean that this diagram from one of my theology textbooks by Alister E. McGrath (Christian Theology, An Introduction) explains the point?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v376/Christopher88/trinity.jpg
Also, what does 'breathes' mean in this sense; and also, what could 'beget' mean?
I assumed that the Holy Spirit was also begotton, but, that is what I used to think.

I open my heart.

I think it is better to say that the Son is generated (Greek: gennaô) from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds (Greek: ekporeuomai) from the Father. That is what the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says, though McGrath might be basing his "breathes" from some Patristic explanations of what it means for the Spirit to "proceed" from the Father. Since pneuma means spirit/breath/wind, perhaps the way the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father is depicted by some as the Father "breathing" forth the Spirit (which could explain McGrath's language).

I think the Orthodox are pretty adamant that only the Son is "begotten" from the Father. In fact, I suspect that "only-begotten Son" doesn't just mean that Jesus was the only Human to have been begotten from/by the Father in the unique way in which He is THE Son of God (versus the way that we, too, are sons and daughters of God). I suspect it might also indicate that ONLY THE SON is "begotten" from the Father - i.e., no one/no thing else is "begotten from the Father," neither the Spirit, nor anything else God made or generated. But I'm just speculating.

[choirfiend]

The Visitation of Abraham is NOT a depiction of the Father. Abraham was visited by three angels, adn we know that he alternately referred to them as one and as three. This is the only representation of the Trinity accpetable, but it is NOT a representation in the manner in which you speak.


Ramesses,

The Jews did not call God Father. They called Him Lord, they called Him Yahweh, but they never called Him Father. Christ started that, Abba, Daddy, and we are sons with Him by adoption.

When He showed us how to pray, He prayed to His Father. There is no "emboldened" F father. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; God, as the evening hymn says.

[Jacob4707]

The Visitation of Abraham is NOT a depiction of the Father. Abraham was visited by three angels, adn we know that he alternately referred to them as one and as three. This is the only representation of the Trinity accpetable, but it is NOT a representation in the manner in which you speak.


Ramesses,

The Jews did not call God Father. They called Him Lord, they called Him Yahweh, but they never called Him Father. Christ started that, Abba, Daddy, and we are sons with Him by adoption.

When He showed us how to pray, He prayed to His Father. There is no "emboldened" F father. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; God, as the evening hymn says.

"The Gemorrah in Taanis tells the story of when there was a very bad drought in Eretz Yisrael , the land of Israel. Public fasts were proclaimed and special prayers were said. The great Torah Scholar Rabbi Eliezer was called upon to lead the prayers with the saying of the 24 blessing Amidah, which is said at times of severe drought. Yet, no rain fell. His disciple, Rabbi Akiva came to the front and said a special prayer in which each verse began with the words, Avinu Malkenu, Our Father, Our King. Rain fell. The prayer became a regular part of the prayer services during a time of fasting or tragedy. Today, it is said fast days and during the ten days of repentance. On Yom Kippur, during Neilah, the word ketiva, inscribed is replaced by chatima, sealed, because in the Neilah prayer G-d seals our fate for the coming year."

- - -

Akiba ben Joseph (ca. 50–ca. 135 CE) (Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew): עקיבא) or simply Rabbi Akiva was a Judean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea) tanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaim) of the latter part of the 1st century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century) and the beginning of the 2nd century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_century) (Wikipedia)

- - -

I suspect that R. Akiva's phrase "Avinu Malkenu," was not original with him. Other sources I've read support that Jews called God "Father"/abba before Jesus did.

[choirfiend]

For further emphasis:

The visitation of Abraham is typically held to be a Type of the Trinity, prefiguring, and yet more. It is most CERTAINLY not an illicit depiction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Jacob4707]

For further emphasis:

The visitation of Abraham is typically held to be a Type of the Trinity, prefiguring, and yet more. It is most CERTAINLY not an illicit depiction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To clarify:

I am not saying that the icon of the visitation of Abraham is "illicit."

I am saying what I have been told by our priest with respect to Rublev's "Trinity" in which he has removed Abraham and Sarah and shows just the three visitors, to wit: If this image/icon is said to represent or depict the Trinity, that is something that is technically not allowed to be done in Orthodox iconography, from what I understand - i.e., depict God the Father.

(I'm sure the iconographers here at TAW can confirm or correct my understanding with respect to this.)

[Eusebios]

A local council in Russia convened, I believe, in the 17th Century prohibited the depiction of God the Father in iconography. This was not an Ecumenical Council and therefor holds no weight for the Church at large. That being said, it seems to me that such depictions are somewhat rare, though I have been in several temples which have them, and I believe there is even one at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow :eek:
As to Rublev's "Hospitality of Abraham", I believe that Choirfiend is correct in saying that the threee angels can be seen as a type of the Holy Trinity. They do not necessarily represent the three persons however. Perhaps MTI will come along and set us straight on this issue :)
Eusebios
:bow:

[Dewi Sant]

Dr. Andreopoulos gave us a lecture on iconography and he went into great discourse about the symbolism in Rublev's icon of the Hospitality of Abraham.

He is fairly sure of there being nearly obvious symbolism of which charactor is which person, though, you do need to know what to look for, and I've forgotten that...the lecture was last term.


I try to leave what is canon to the church.

[choirfiend]

The center would be the Godhead, the Father. At His right hand sits the Son, and on the other, the Holy Spirit. It IS a typology without being an attempt at a literal depiction.

[Nickolai]

The center would be the Godhead, the Father. At His right hand sits the Son, and on the other, the Holy Spirit. It IS a typology without being an attempt at a literal depiction.

I believe the color scheme puts the Son in the middle does it not?

[choirfiend]

Oops sorry yea, I was talking without actually looking at it. The coloring of the clothing is indicative of the divinity/humanity of Christ.

[jckstraw72]

its a type of the Trinity, not actually the Trinity ... i think

[buzuxi02]

Rublev's Trinity is the title the art world sometimes gives to this masterpiece. Rublevs icon is not of the trinity but an icon of "The Hospitality of Abraham" which Orthodoxy believes is a "Type" of the trinity.
There is no such thing as an icon of the OT Trinity just the icon of Abraham's Hospitality which can be used as a type of the Trinity. And any NT Trinity icon is uncanonical and no icon at all.

[Matrona]

And any NT Trinity icon is uncanonical and no icon at all.

Except for the Baptism in the Jordan, right? :P

"When Thou, O Lord, was baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest..."

[ma2000]

Except for the Baptism in the Jordan, right? :P

"When Thou, O Lord, was baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest..."
Except the Baptism icons are not Trinity icons :P

(God The Father wasn't seen at the Baptism)

[Dewi Sant]

I have seen some pretty awful icons of the baptism of our Lord including a big man in the sky....these are of course not Orthodox.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Except the Baptism icons are not Trinity icons :P

(God The Father wasn't seen at the Baptism)
No, but it is a manifestation of the Trinity. "At thy baptism in the Jordan worship of the Trinity was revealed." And, as for the Hopitality of Abraham, it was also a manifestation of the Trinity, so it is not at all incorrect to call it the OT Trinity.

[Michael the Iconographer]

A local council in Russia convened, I believe, in the 17th Century prohibited the depiction of God the Father in iconography. This was not an Ecumenical Council and therefor holds no weight for the Church at large. That being said, it seems to me that such depictions are somewhat rare, though I have been in several temples which have them, and I believe there is even one at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow :eek:
As to Rublev's "Hospitality of Abraham", I believe that Choirfiend is correct in saying that the threee angels can be seen as a type of the Holy Trinity. They do not necessarily represent the three persons however. Perhaps MTI will come along and set us straight on this issue :)
Eusebios
:bow:
MTI would love to straighten the issue, but he is working 12 hour days. The Russian Church has attempted time and again to get rid of the Old Man, Jesus and a Dove paintings that pass as the NT Trinity. It has pointed out time and again that no one has seen God the Father and thus it is idolatry to paint him. But it has not worked. I cringe when I see these paintings, which I will not call icons, because they are not canonically icons. If I had my way, they would all be burnt while asking God to have mercy on us sinners. I will try to say more on Saturday once I have gotten past this long work week.

[Akathist]

MTI would love to straighten the issue, but he is working 12 hour days. The Russian Church has attempted time and again to get rid of the Old Man, Jesus and a Dove paintings that pass as the NT Trinity. It has pointed out time and again that no one has seen God the Father and thus it is idolatry to paint him. But it has not worked. I cringe when I see these paintings, which I will not call icons, because they are not canonically icons. If I had my way, they would all be burnt while asking God to have mercy on us sinners. I will try to say more on Saturday once I have gotten past this long work week.

I agree Michael. We have one of those "paintings" of the Dove, Old Man, etc etc. It was in our nave and Priest moved it to the fellowship hall when he came to the church even though many of the older members were very upset about this. But the rest of us really really dislike it and wish it was not even there.

But the "type" of the Trinity in the Hospitality of Abraham icon doesn't bother me personally to look at. I don't wish to purchase one for personal veneration myself. I am looking forward to hearing your view on that icon as well as any other iconographer we have in TAW.

[Dewi Sant]

Is the icon of the hospitality of Abraham venerated?

[choirfiend]

Of course. It's an icon.

[Akathist]

Is the icon of the hospitality of Abraham venerated?

choirfiend answered you but looking at my reply above it might sound as though I don't venerate this icon. I do at church.

[Knowledge3]

I love small-style visual representative icons.

The Andrei Rublev is definitely on my list of small-icons to get. :priest:

[choirfiend]

Ramesesseseseesees,

I love this series for its simplicity. Hopefully you can get something new out of the section on the Trinity (http://oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book=Doctrine&section=The%20Holy%20Trinity)

[Michael the Iconographer]

I love small-style visual representative icons.

The Andrei Rublev is definitely on my list of small-icons to get. :priest:
Do you understand what icons are about?