Featured Images said to be Christ;Sacred or Sacrelege?

Lets see if you are consistent.

You insist that it must be referred to as an "image" when speaking of it abstractly, but an "idol" only when it is being used as an object of worship. You deny that the designers intent defines what it is and how it should be viewed. Thus, you present your argument about archeologists finding such "relics" and thus only "images" versus how they were used as objects of worship as "idols."


Now, does God and the Scripture writers share your same perspective when they use the terms abstractly from a non-worship point of view ("image") versus from a an object of worship point of view ("idol") or do they define it according to its intended design and thus use the terms interchangably?

When speaking of it abstractly from the non-worship Christian perspective, Paul calls it an "idol" rather than an "image":

1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

According to your apologetically defended distinction, Paul should have called it an "image" in contrast to his use of "idol" in the first sentence, because the second sentence shares what it is and how it is to be perceived FROM THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE and he says "idols" rather than "images." Moreover, the Corinthians were not worshipping them as "idol's but were boasting they knew it was no god. So they too should have only referred to them as "images" rather than "idols" unless (1) it is the design that defines how it is to be viewed (2) and thus idol and image are interchangable terms.

1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

Again, Paul is speaking abstractly in the first part of the verse in regard to how the Christian perceives it while describing how the heathen perceive it in the second half. However, he does not change his wording from "idol" to "image" when speaking about it from the abstract Christian perspective!


God does not call them "images" when speaking abstractly of them but calls them "idols" and "molten gods" instead of "images" and "molten images":

Le 19:4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

According to your position and definitive difference, God should have not spoken of them abstractly as "idols" or "molten gods" but rather as "images" and "molten images." This proves that God sees them and defines them according to their design even when speaking of them abstractly which would make the terms "idol" and "image" interchangable. Hence, they are to be referred to and defined as an "idol" due to the design of the maker:

Hab 2:18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?

Notice, the one making the "image" has designed it with the intent for worship and thus the intent defines it to make dumb idols before anyone actually uses it as such.

Therefore, God and Paul when speaking of it abstractly FROM THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW (NOT AS WORSHIPPERS) call it an "idol" instead of a "image" thus denying your carefully crafted distinction, proving that its DESIGN determines how it is to be viewed by God and man even from an abstract point of view. Thus, the terms "idol" and "image" are used interchangably by Biblical writers regardless whether the context shows they are being used as objects of worship, or abstract observation by those who do not use them as objects of worship but are providing the true perspective. The true perspective does not make your distinction but defines them as "idols" according to their intented design rather than mere "images."

They use them interchangably regardless if the context is about its use for worship or the context is abstract and simply is providing the Christian perspective of what it is - it is an "idol" even from the Christian abstract perspective.

 

If God and Paul define them as "idols" due to their design alone, then they are idols when they are dug up 2000 years later and should be treated as such. They do not originate with men but with demons (1 Tim. 4:1). So we should remove any demonically designed image from our homes and places of worship. What archeologists do with them is their business between themselves and God.

Now it is your turn to answer my post.

P.S. "false doctrine" is said to have its origin with demons (1 Tim. 4:1) as they are called "doctrines of demons". Are they still "doctrines of demons" when no one is embracing them or only when people embrace them? In other words, are they demonic in character by design or only by use or both? When considered abstractly are they doctrines of demons?

 

That is wonderful you have given your approval to God and Paul for calling it an "idol" instead of an "image".

It would seem you are attempting to do some mental gymnastics, instead of addressing the evidence appropriately? The maker of the image is obviously designing that image to be an idol and thus it defined as an "idol" by God and man even as it is being made without it receiving any ACTUAL WORSHIP yet! However, you want to read back into it the idea of worship already being received in order to justify your approval that it can be called an "idol" and for you theory that says the very opposite?????

 

So, you believe that the makers of idols, who are artists, were not intentionally carving, sculpting, or painting actual likenesses of the "god's" of their imagination which they expressed in artistic form. Instead, those who purchased these "images" made them into idols and thus something never intended by the artists??? I have ocean side property in Montana for sale, are you interested???:thumbs:

So now, you are going to have to back pedal and admit that the artists in Biblical times did have that intent, but you think artists in modern times don't have that intent. It must be wonderful to be able to read the minds of artists and tell everyone else what what their thoughts and intentions were at the time of their artistic expressions???

So with one swipe of your keyboard you simply ignore the fact that when God spoke of them ABSTRACTLY he did not call them "images" as your interpretation demands but called them "idols" and "molten gods"???? Convenient! So God did not destroy them because he recognized them as "idols" and "molten gods" due to both intent behind their design and use, but only destroyed them because they were a "constant temptation to his people"??? So how did that deal with the problem which you claim was INTERNAL only in the first place as the external "images" were NEVER anything but the INTERNAL was what made them "idols"?????

Apparently, Paul must be supersititious then as he told the Corinthians that "demons" were associated with the images (1 Cor. 10), just as he told Timothy that "demons" were associated with all false "doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:1).

They were told not to go up to a certain geographical place where people were offering up food to these idols because they would be in communion with demons for just attending WHEN THEIR HEARTS HAD NO ASSOCIATION WITH THESE IDOLS but recognized them as NO GODS at all. Indeed, the boast of these Corinthians about the superior KNOWLEDGE they possessed in regard to these "images" is exactly the same KNOWLEDGE you are claiming about these "images." You too believe they are no gods, but just "images" and so you too are claiming NO INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP with these images. However, Paul associated a direct relationship with these "images" to demons, just as he associated a direct relationship with false doctrine to demons. He ordered them not to sit at the tables where food was being offered to these idols because of a DEMONIC PRESENCE with these idols.

Wow! Talk about double talk, wow! You "conceded that this was inconsistent of me" but in reality it was "not inconsistent" but you were simply trying to be charitable?????????? Is that a fancy way to say YOU LIED?

I see, you can call them "idols" not because the archeologists were using them to worship, but because once upon a time that was their use, while you deny that was the intent of the ancient artist as well??? I think if you carefully considered what the scriptures say about the artists that provided these "images" it would clearly indicate they DESIGNED them for that very use and thus the "images" were idols from the INTERNAL CONCEPTION in the mind of the artist as much as when they were actually put to that use by others. Of course, you dismiss that HEART IDOLALTRY within the artist and merely ascribe it to artistic expression not to any kind of attempt by the Artist to actually present an "image" (likeness) of a god. So with your mumbo jumbo mental gymnastics the artistic image of a god is not really meant to express an "image" (likeness) of the god?????????:BangHead:

Of course I agree with this PARTIAL definition of idolatry. However, what you fail to see is that the HEART of the artist is intentionally expressing a MENTAL image into a visible IMAGE of the god in question, and a "image" is by definition a "LIKENESS" of the god. So for you to say that the artist is not really trying express any kind of LIKENESS of a god is like saying "image" does not mean "image." Now that is real double talk!

The point is that what I am talking about is not what you are trying to turn the conversation unto. I am talking about the intent of an artist to produce an "image" of something that others will acknowledge to be a "god" rather than merely ANYTHING that might be exalted in the heart to take the position of God. The intent of the artist is BOTH. He knows what he is fashioning will not only be an intentionally fashioning of what others will recognize and call "a god" but that they will also put in the position of "a god." Therefore, the artist's conception is the revelation of what his own mind conceives to be THE LIKENESS of the god he is fashioning.

Likewise with the artistic expressions of Jesus. They are making visible what is their own MENTAL CONCEPTION of Christ, who is God, and that is why one artistic expression differs from another. They also intentionally realize in doing this they are providing an "image" of God for what others will also acknowledge to be a visible expression of Christ, who is God. Hence, from the imagination of the Artist to the acknowledgement of the viewers it is the SIN of making an image of God that limits and thus perverts God in the minds of both the artists and those who acknowledge the intent of the artists to express a visbile "image" (likeness) of God.

You are trying to take the point of contention and immerse it within generalties, while I am dealing with one specific issue and that is the intent to provide a visible likeness of God or "a god" to an audience who shares the same conclusion, of which, the Scriptures clearly deny and condemn as a perversion of the God of the Bible.

 

I never agreed to any such thing. Indeed, I argued for the very reverse. They made an "image" of Christ as perceived in their own mind and by definition an "image" is a LIKENESS and Christ is God.

Claiming omniscience again I see! How do you know? They were giving visible expression to represent the God of their imaginations. That is precisely what Paul says in Romans 1:

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Christian idolatry and non-Christian idolatry is idolatry with just a different adjective attached. There is no difference.

And you are going to tell me that the artists that painted Christ did not make that image without any mental veneration of whom they were attempting to portray??? When asked who they were attempting to represent, did they say, "this is Joe smoe"???????????? Can anyone who hangs such a picture up in their church or home without any veneration of whom they perceive that picture to represent???? when asked who is that by a child, would they say, "that is Joe smoe?" or "that is simply an artistic expression of Jesus Christ but not intended to given any actual visible expression to how he looked"???? I have ocean side property in Montana if you think that is the case!!!!

The issue of this debate has been and continues to be the production of "images" that are of God or a "god" and Christ is God. You want to change the subject to "images" of you or me or on a dollar bill. Remember, I gave two classifications: (1) Images that may or may not become idols; (2) Images that are idols by their very nature as they are designed to depict what the artist conceived to be expressed as God or "a god" and Christ is God.

Demons are associated with "images" of a god or God (1 Cor. 10) just as demons are associated with false doctrines (1 Tim. 4:1). It is not superstitious to believe in the reality of demons and what the Bible says are associated with them.

 

This thread has reached its 20 page limit set by BB guidelines and will be closed!!