Which emperor ordered that a new capital city by built? The Zodiac Legacy: The Dragon's Return10/12/2023 The solution is found through a closer look at the sequence of the Iconoclast controversy, which may be blamed on the icon as much as and more so than on the cross. This poses the problem how Iconoclasm should have been possible without icons and how the cross could have become associated with the destruction of icons, if there were no such images to destroy and replace. in the capital and the heartland of the Byzantine Empire – early Christian church decoration had always been focused on the symbol of the cross and excluded the kind of figural image that was at issue during Iconoclasm. However, this paper finds that at Constantinople and in Asia Minor – i.e. Afterwards, the winning party, which favoured the icon, put all the blame on the cross and its adherents who allegedly started the dispute by destroying icons and replacing them with crosses. This happened as a result of Byzantine Iconoclasm, when in the eighth and ninth centuries icons were substituted for crosses and vice versa. The cross used to be the most important symbol of all Christendom, until Byzantium replaced it with the icon as primary attribute of Orthodox Christianity. This paper asks how and why the cross lost out to the icon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |