Sorry, I meant pictures depicting "Jesus" whether explicit (e.g. Jesus in the garden) or implied (e.g., a cross). We simply disagree.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Images said to be Christ;Sacred or Sacrelege?
- Thread starter T Alan
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I meant pictures depicting "Jesus" whether explicit (e.g. Jesus in the garden) or implied (e.g., a cross). We simply disagree.
We haven't really specified, but I assume by virtue of the argument, and a need for consistency, we are also including crosses?
I provided two distinct classifications of images. The former was general which could become idols. The latter was specific which by design is an image of a "god" or "God." Jesus is God. Any image of Christ is an image of God, whether it is on a canvas or in stone or in wood or in metal. By its very existence it is an idol. Moreover, If that image of God is recognized IN YOUR MIND as God, as in, who is that, and you reply that is a picture of Christ, that is an carving of Christ, that is a molten image of Christ, then you are MENTALLY ascribing that identity to it.
What you are really teaching is that there is no such concrete thing as a idol. Idols are mere perceptions. One person can kneel before a picture of Christ in reverence while another person because he does not perceive it as representative of Christ it is no idol. So the very same image can be an idol to some but not to others. So idolatry has no concrete existence but only exists in the minds of men who can PERCEIVE any image for that end.
So when the godly kings of Israel went through the land destroying concrete idols they were really misled as these images were not idols, as idolatry only existed in the minds of their people while the images where neither good or bad. Thus erecting "images" in the house of God should not have angered God since they are not "idols" except in the minds of men. Why should God instruct kings and prophets to destroy concrete images when the image is not an idol since idolatry is purely an mental perception of an image???
Pure arrogance................
pure ignorance on your part because Catholics on the "other Christian Denominations" forum have asserted and do assert the very same essential arguments. They deny their images are idols BECAUSE they do not precieve them as such.
Well I don't have nay pics of Jesus nor statues. Nor do I want any. And so what. That is not an argument. I don't know who is more arrogant you or icon. You guys are just eat up with it.
Perception is not the issue here. It is whether or not someone uses these images painted, drawn, or statue in a idolatry fashion. Do they engage in the act of worshiping them. Simply having them does not make them idols.
If not, then why would they bow down to an image????? Sin is committed IN THE HEART before it is committed with action. That is the spiritual nature of the law. That is the Biblical interpretation of the Law according to Jesus (Mt. 5:21-27).
Oh, I see, they cease to be what they are designed to be??? So the image of Baal ceases to be an idol simply because you don't bow down to it or perceive it to be designed for that purpose????
Tell that to God, who commanded the kings of Judah to destroy all graven images. If they were not "idols" but only became "idols" when people perceived them to be gods and then acted accordingly, then why destroy the image when the problem of idolatry is not with any image but with the person perceiving the image as a god??
Furthermore, what was the purpose in designing that particular image? Where did that design originate? According to Paul, the origin of such things has a demonic origin and demonic presence, even though he asserts they are no real gods.
I guess the question really is, is it wrong to purposely make an image of God. Does that image by its very nature distort the very thing it is intentionally designed to represent. Is it wrong to buy, receive or accept that image when you know its intentional design? Is it wrong when asked who is that an image of, to respond that is God, or that is Christ or that is the Holy Spirit or that is the Son of God?
If you answer no, to all these, then explain why God would even go to the trouble to destroy such images? Why not simply correct the wrong perception of that image instead of destroying the image???
plain_n_simple
Active Member
Better get rid of your churches nativity sets
Yes, that is what I am saying.
Yes and no. Those concrete idols were idols to those who would worship them (something that Israel often fell into). But I do not believe that Christian archaeologists today should destroy ancient idols that they dig up because the objects themselves carry no meaning.
Your interpretation requires you to call them "images" not "idols." If they are "idols" that means the image carries that connotation by design and therefore is as much an "idol" by design as by existence regardless if the archeologists bow down before it or not.
If your theory was true, then God should have not even bothered to destroy the "images" any more than modern archeologists.
:thumbs: True, and I stand corrected. Do you believe that these ancient images of objects worshipped by idolaters centuries ago should be destroyed rather than persevered and studied?
Do you believe God should order their destruction when the issue is not the image itself according to your view but the persons perception of the image?
If you have a Buddha and someone came into your house and reverenced it would you be obligated to destroy it?
What are the first three commands in the Ten Commandments?
Why did the Lord make a difference between the Second and the Third?
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
and then He says:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
They are separate commands.
Simply making any graven image or a representation of any kind in the likeness of God is idolatry. One does not have to have an intent to worship or commit idolatry--just in making the image. That is a violation of the Second Commandment. Worshiping it is a violation of the third. That is what the RCC don't see.
However, when I was a Catholic, verse five was omitted.
Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath Day was the 3rd command.
And the 10th command, concerning coveting was split in two:
9. Don't covet your neighbor's goods, and,
10. Don't covet your neighbor's wife.
The Protestants had a "different 10 Commandments."
Another good example is found in Acts 19:
Act 19:23 And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.
Act 19:24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
Act 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
Act 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Act 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
Demetrius, a silversmith, could have been an atheist for all we know. His interest was in making money not in worshiping his god. In Application he would be in violation of the second commandment but not the third, for he was still making idols to be worshiped though he himself may not have worshiped them.
- Status