What is the bahai view of Holy icons?

Oct 2013
697
Glenwood, Queensland, Australia
#21
Interesting that he should deny the use of images or icons. Very interesting is all I can say. Thank you for the sources. But what does the phrase "with the exception of the greatest name" mean? The greatest name is the name of God, Yahweh.
Good morning Orthodox

You have commenced a most interesting thread. Thank you.

Noticing that your question had not been answered. In one sense, you are correct when you say "The greatest name is the name of God,...". In another sense, it can be viewed differently, and to a Baha'i means much more.

God, being the possessor of all Names, can be called by any one of those Names.However, there is one name which is regarded as the Greatest Name of God, and that Name is "Baha", or 'Glory'. Quoting from Note 33 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

The various derivatives of the word “Bahá” are also regarded as the Greatest Name. Shoghi Effendi’s secretary writing on his behalf explains that

The Greatest Name is the Name of Bahá’u’lláh. “Yá Bahá’u’l-Abhá” is an invocation meaning: “O Thou Glory of Glories!” “Alláh-u-Abhá” is a greeting which means: “God the All-Glorious.” Both refer to Bahá’u’lláh. By Greatest Name is meant that Bahá’u’lláh has appeared in God’s Greatest Name, in other words, that He is the supreme Manifestation of God.
There are also other variations, all based around the Name "Baha".

With warm greetings

Romane
 
Mar 2013
491
none
#23
The icons of the orthodox church, they contain not just only icons, symbols, but in the art. They have a large variety, and it may seem like just a mass of holy figures, but its art that is mostly not destroyed, and in the orthodox it was not shaped to roman-catholic. But you may find a golden coin that used same, thats the number and the icon... either you see the money or the image...and even if, its just kept.
Belief was in the control of the written the control of the belief, so to define, and avoid any own practising, it was not for the heretics that was seen in that, but it was that it made people in that own way of faith, it was hard to fall into what was told in latin and have to believe and in that other laws that just made another lord one of world one of the sacral ... but they came to be the same, and in that came indeed to that argument... In was the renaissance that brought later back, and was overpainted also, as it was again bruned what was recovered. art is one form that make it, since its not seen, not understand, and even overpainted, not known what it would be to overpaint... so stil there
And its hard to understand, what has been destroyed, since it just not seen what is not and destroyed.

And the effort, war and destruction to achieve this, its just: People that keep it, just have no fear, and they just dont do, what you command them, if they keep to ther faith, and that in unity, its that comic asterix&obelix.. and thats a comic.. and so it has been just not one village that did that... and divide and rule that was romans empire tool
 
Last edited:
Jun 2015
389
.
#24
I am not sure that Orthodox Christians would use the language of 'heretical or blasphemous idol worship' of statues of saints. They prefer icons because icons are a specific form of religious art, not because statues are idolatry. In either case it is important to distinguish veneration of the prototype from worship, which belongs only to God.

Images of Mohammed have not always been forbidden. There are plenty of Islamic manuscripts which contain depictions of him; some do not show his face, some do.

It is a modern construct to say that this is entirely forbidden.
That's correct.

Went to a guitar recital at Ely Cathedral two weekends past; in the Lady Chapel. The walls are full of wee figures. During the Reformation the Chapel was attacked and wrecked. All the figures were mutilated about their heads and faces (you will have seen this at other churches); save for one lass tucked away in a corner. I wonder how she managed to escape!

Paul
 
Last edited:
Jun 2015
389
.
#25
Some statues escaped if the clergy were able to persuade the iconoclasts that they were kings or queens rather than saints. Or perhaps she was hidden behind coats or something.

The remains of only one saint survived in the whole of England. Every saint was torn from his or her shrine and the bones destroyed and discarded. The glorious exception to this is the Blessed Cuthbert in Durham. His coffin was opened in c 1540 or so, 850 years or so after he died (687AD), and his body was found to be intact and incorrupt. This caused a great deal of consternation; it was one thing to break up a lot of bones; another completely to destroy an incorrupt saint. So after much discussion it was decided to leave Cuthbert alone, and he was reburied with all respect and honour. And he remains to this day in his own Cathedral; still incorrupt.

http://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/architecture/cathedral/intro/cuthbert-shrine
Thank you. Never too old to learn (me that is!) :cool:
 

Similar threads