seekermark66 wrote:If you read Eusebius's Church History (4th cent.) he recounts familiarity with statues used in Christian art/worship and does not judge them to be heretical or improper. Obviously, they are not acceptable in Orthodoxy, but neither are they a post-schism innovation.
I have his book. It's been a while since I read it. The part I see is Chapter 7:18. His comment: This statue , which was said to resemble the features of Jesus was still there in my own time, so I saw it with my own eyes when I resided in the city. It is not all surprising that Gentiles who long ago received such benefits from our Saviour should have expressed their gratitude thus, for the features of His Apostles Paul and Peter, and indeed of Christ Himself, have been preserved in colored portraits which I have examined. How could it be otherwise, when the ancients habitually followed their own Gentile custom of honouring them as saviours in this uninhibited way?
Here he is describing pagans who express their gratitude with their view of art. The statue resembled "the features" of Christ. Why didn't he say that the statue is the image of Jesus Christ? Why would he call them Gentiles?
Here is another excerpt where he talks about the Christians ( 8:11): But why need I tell a long story, piling up examples of the victories won by devoted martyrs all over the world, especially those who were attacked now not under common law but as enemies in ware? For example a little Christian town in Phrygia was encircled by legionaries, who set it on fire and completely destroyed it, along with the entire population - men, women, children - as they called on Almighty God. And why? Because all the inhabitants of the town without exception - the Mayor himself and the magistrates, with all the officials and the whole populace - declared themselves Christians and absolutely refused to obey the command to commit idolatry.
Compare the two descriptions. The first sounds like he's talking about people who had reverence for Christ and expressed it with how they could with their pagan knowledge. The second, he talks about them as Christians. If the first example is meant to support the idea that Christians used statues, then why does he call them Gentiles? Back then they didn't call their fellow Christians Gentiles.
So, you see. I still don't see where you get the sense of Christianity as accepting statues. That would be the equivalence of us Orthodox, today, accepting the evolution lie. It just doesn't work with our faith.
There were many heresies during the early Christian days. There are people today that accuse the Church of being Gnostics. They say that the Church supported that. The Church didn't support that, but there were heretics at the time that tried to incorporate it as part of the Apostles' teachings. It doesn't mean that the Church accepted it. She fought against it.
It's one thing to say that the Church "accepted" an idea or view, but it's important to understand that there were many heretics that tried to incorporate their ideas as part of the Apostles' teachings, but they were officially anathematized.
My point is that statues were never accepted as an art form by Christians because they were always associated with idol worship. The Church never accepted them. If they were mentioned as part of art, then it was by pagans or heretics.
Reading through this book makes me want to read it again. It's really an amazing travel back into the past.