Images said to be Christ;Sacred or Sacrelege?

[InTheLight]

Here's a good test to determine if the images are sacred.

Simply SUGGEST them being removed. (stand back and be prepared to be marginalized at least, castigated or worse most likely)

This is interesting. My mother-in-law died recently. My wife brought home several of the paintings and artwork she had in her house. Almost none of them would fit our contemporary theme or decor, but that's a side issue to this discussion.

One of them is the famous portrait of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane before the crucifixion. I asked her what she planned on doing with that painting, because I told her I'm not going to have it hung in my house. (Told her that about ALL the paintings, but again, that's not germane to this discussion.) "I don't know, but I feel weird throwing it away." (Wife is former Catholic.) I guess the tacit consensus is that it will be donated.

 

[salzer mtn]

:thumbsup: I was thinking the same. I don't know why the sudden emphasis on RCC or "RCCish" thinking within the Baptist denomination. I'm not very old, but I'm also not very young ("middle age" is probably presumptuous), but I have never met a Baptist who considered a cross, nativity scenes, etc. sacred so it would be foolish for me to view them as sacrelege (within a Baptist context). But I do think RCC doctrines concerning venerating items to be idolatry (although I do understand their defense).

As a kid I remember going from the kitchen down the hall and seeing my twin sister bowing down in front of a picture mother had hanging on the wall of Jesus with a bleeding heart. We were of the Baptist faith but not practicing as Rosanne Barrs tv husband once said. My sister would never do such a thing like that today.

 

[Zenas]

One only has to view a portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci, the painter of the last supper to see a strong resemblance of Da Vinci and the blue eyed, long haired Jesus. Da Vinci was rumored to be gay and had been a model for portraits himself. He wore his hair long probably trying to look feminine. I would assume the pictures of Jesus hanging on the living room walls today are copied from Da Vinci's last supper.

I think you're correct that Da Vinci set the stage for the blue eyed long haired Jesus. You see a similar, although more masculine, version in the 20th Century paintings of Warner Sallman, which many of us have hanging in our churches today. However, is has not always been so. There is an ancient painting that was in use before Da Vinci that depicts Jesus as more the 1st Century Jew that He was. I'm not smart enough to paste it here, but here is a link to that picture and the whole Wiki article for that matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

 

[HankD]

We are not under the law (but even under the law the images of the cherubim were allowed in the Holy Place).

A picture derived from the human imagination of what Jesus actually looked like is of course only a guess unless some higher revelation is claimed then I would avoid owning it.

However of the more famous derivations (though I don't have any in my own home) it can possibly send a message that the homeowner has some affection or affiliation of sorts with Jesus. So it could be used as a springboard for a discussion.

BTW the Hebrew alphabet is made of a kind of alphabet hieroglyphic.

The letter Aleph - image of an oxhead
the letter Beth - image of a house.

HankD

 

[PreachTony]

We are not under the law (but even under the law the images of the cherubim were allowed in the Holy Place).

A picture derived from the human imagination of what Jesus actually looked like is of course only a guess unless some higher revelation is claimed then I would avoid owning it.

However of the more famous derivations (though I don't have any in my own home) it can possibly send a message that the homeowner has some affection or affiliation of sorts with Jesus. So it could be used as a springboard for a discussion.

Exactly. The commandment states things in Heaven, in Earth, and in Water...which is broad enough to include basically any depiction of anything in existence. Yet, as Hank points out, the Ark of the Covenant, which sat in the Temple of God, had images of cherubim, and that was from a directive of God.

I still think we have to look at the way in which the image is received and revered. If someone paints a picture of Jesus and then worships that painting as though it were Jesus, then yes, you have an issue. If it is a simple depiction of a Biblical scene, with no connotations of being worshiped, but instead is just art or is a helpful aid for people learning about the Bible, then why rail against it?

 

[Tom Butler]

If the pictures hang in the Church and the worshipers see it and believe it to be Jesus, how can they not include it as the object of Worship?

I never knew anybody who really believed the picture was actually of Jesus. At least no adult. And among Baptists, I don't know a single soul which made a picture an object of worship.

 

[InTheLight]

I never knew anybody who really believed the picture was actually of Jesus. At least no adult. And among Baptists, I don't know a single soul which made a picture an object of worship.

So true. But when you practice legalism you have to make up stuff so your rule will apply to it.

 

[T Alan]

We are not under the law (but even under the law the images of the cherubim were allowed in the Holy Place).

A picture derived from the human imagination of what Jesus actually looked like is of course only a guess unless some higher revelation is claimed then I would avoid owning it.

However of the more famous derivations (though I don't have any in my own home) it can possibly send a message that the homeowner has some affection or affiliation of sorts with Jesus. So it could be used as a springboard for a discussion.HankD

My suggestion for the springboard would be a Bible then It could be opened and....

So true. But when you practice legalism you have to make up stuff so your rule will apply to it.

I for one, don't need to practice anymore. Salvation if of the LORD, He is the Way the Truth and the Life.

As a kid I remember going from the kitchen down the hall and seeing my twin sister bowing down in front of a picture mother had hanging on the wall of Jesus with a bleeding heart. We were of the Baptist faith but not practicing as Rosanne Barrs tv husband once said. My sister would never do such a thing like that today.

Praise the LORD for growth in Grace and truth.

This is interesting. My mother-in-law died recently. My wife brought home several of the paintings and artwork she had in her house. Almost none of them would fit our contemporary theme or decor, but that's a side issue to this discussion.

One of them is the famous portrait of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane before the crucifixion. I asked her what she planned on doing with that painting, because I told her I'm not going to have it hung in my house. (Told her that about ALL the paintings, but again, that's not germane to this discussion.) "I don't know, but I feel weird throwing it away." (Wife is former Catholic.) I guess the tacit consensus is that it will be donated.

Praise the LORD for growth in Grace in truth and condolences to your family.

 

[JonC]

Pictures, crosses, nativity scenes, etc, are not idols in and of themselves. It is the attitude of the person who idolizes these things. If one idolizes these things then they will worship them or they will have an iconoclastic view against them. Either way it is idolatry in that both sides attribute to the inanimate inappropriate qualities. It is impossible for something to be an "idol" without there being idolatry (this is what makes the thing an idol). A painting of Jesus in the garden is not an idol in and of itself. But from my experience the most common idol, in terms "Christian idolatry", is a Bible.

 

[T Alan]

Pictures, crosses, nativity scenes, etc, are not idols in and of themselves. It is the attitude of the person who idolizes these things. If one idolizes these things then they will worship them or they will have an iconoclastic view against them. Either way it is idolatry in that both sides attribute to the inanimate inappropriate qualities. It is impossible for something to be an "idol" without there being idolatry (this is what makes the thing an idol). A painting of Jesus in the garden is not an idol in and of itself. But from my experience the most common idol, in terms "Christian idolatry", is a Bible.

PLEASE! It's not Jesus! I say to the OP, Sacrilege. But I am, so I read, A legalist.

 

[JonC]

PLEASE! It's not Jesus! I say to the OP, Sacrilege. But I am, so I read, A legalist.

[emoji28] Of course it is not. Paintings are representations. Those of Jesus dont represent his physical appearance (and this is not what they mean to convey)...thats just silly.

 

[T Alan]

[emoji28] Of course it is not. Paintings are representations. Those of Jesus dont represent his physical appearance...thats just silly.

Why would some Church's propagate a mis representation by posting the pictures? I just can't get my arms around it. It just seems like "man's tradition" that should not be.

 

[JonC]

Why would some Church's propagate a mis representation by posting the pictures? I just can't get my arms around it. It just seems like "man's tradition" that should not be.

Perhaps what you are considering the image to represent is not what it actually represent. The ones I have seen represent accounts of events in Scripture, not actual images of Jesus.

 

[T Alan]

Perhaps what you are considering the image to represent is not what it actually represent. The ones I have seen represent accounts of events in Scripture, not actual images of Jesus.

basically the one's at the beginning of this thread. Maybe it's just my area. These pictures are in many churches and even some businesses. It just seems like a waste to me for Christians that know this isn't Jesus to propagate the lie. Mr. Gorbachev take those pictures down.

 

[JonC]

basically the one's at the beginning of this thread. Maybe it's just my area. These pictures are in many churches and even some businesses. It just seems like a waste to me for Christians that know this isn't Jesus to propagate the lie. Mr. Gorbachev take those pictures down.

It may be. I was stationed in areas where I'd see "portraits" of Jesus in homes and shops (I always assumed they were Catholic). That is foreign to my culture and area. I was thinking of scenes and illustrations.

 

[Zenas]

Why would some Church's propagate a mis representation by posting the pictures? I just can't get my arms around it. It just seems like "man's tradition" that should not be.

It's hard to imagine there are people who actually think this way. I know thousands of people from dozens of different faith backgrounds and I must say that I have never heard your views expressed before by anyone.

 

[OldRegular]

We know this is not Jesus. Is this sacred or sacrilege?

I would say ridiculous.

************************************************

Most so-called images of Jesus Christ present a false image. Most picture Him in snow white robes sort of floating over the ground and with an effeminate face. But walking In Israel was a dusty business! And dust tends to rise.

Actually jesus Christ was a working man until He began His ministry and without doubt that was much more difficult. I have always thought Jesus Christ might have looked something like my father. Dad was about 5'10", worked like a dog all his life in the Virginia/Kentucky coal fields, and never weighed more than 150 lbs. I would not use the word rugged describing my Dad, he wasn't that big: but I would call him tough. That is what Jesus Christ had to be.

I once heard Billy Graham say that if Jesus Christ lived today He would be the greatest athlete that ever lived. That is utter nonsense! We could let Scripture speak about His appearance:

Isaiah 53:1-12
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

One additional point. Where did the ling hair come from? I don't believe Jesus Christ was a Nazerite and the Apostle Paul writes:

1Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 

[JonC]

This is one of the most intriguing threads for some time now. I’m amazed. Some here seem to believe that those depictions of Jesus were meant to convey his physical image. The argument that Jesus would have appeared this way, or that….it’s astounding, if you think about it. Just out of curiosity, those who think this way, do you think the painters believed they were picturing Jesus’ physical characteristics? Did Michelangelo thought that his sculpture really looked like David? Do you really not realize that these paints/sculptures, etc, were never intended to accurately portray the physical appearances of their subjects, or is this another “argue anything if it supports me” kinda thing?

 

[Revmitchell]

I personally do not have any pics of Jesus. Nor do I want one.

Having a picture of Jesus or not having one does not make one holier or not as holy, it does not make one wiser or less wise.

What is true and fact is that making one's personal pet peeve into a test of holiness is childish and serves no godly purpose.

 

[PreachTony]

Most so-called images of Jesus Christ present a false image. Most picture Him in snow white robes sort of floating over the ground and with an effeminate face. But walking In Israel was a dusty business! And dust tends to rise.

Actually Jesus Christ was a working man until He began His ministry and without doubt that was much more difficult. I have always thought Jesus Christ might have looked something like my father. Dad was about 5'10", worked like a dog all his life in the Virginia/Kentucky coal fields, and never weighed more than 150 lbs. I would not use the word rugged describing my Dad, he wasn't that big: but I would call him tough. That is what Jesus Christ had to be.

I once heard Billy Graham say that if Jesus Christ lived today He would be the greatest athlete that ever lived. That is utter nonsense! We could let Scripture speak about His appearance:

One additional point. Where did the ling hair come from? I don't believe Jesus Christ was a Nazerite and the Apostle Paul writes:

As I wrote earlier:

If He did appear much as the Jews of the time, then Jesus most likely had a more olive-toned skin, and probably had coarse, black or dark brown hair, though He spent much time outside, so His hair could be bleached to a lighter color, like chesnut. This hair would likely not have been long, as that could interfere with working as a carpenter (as it is assumed He did prior to beginning the ministry). Also, Paul wrote that it was considered a shame for a man to have long hair, even if it was not worth being contentious about. His eyes were most likely darker in color, like brown. He probably wasn't very tall, either. These are just historical truths of first century Jewish males.

I recall reading somewhere that average height for first century male Jews was somewhere around 5-foot-8 or so. The image we see of Jesus in paintings is the culmination of a long history of church-driven artwork and, frankly, iconography, depicting Jesus as looking similar to those in power at the time so as to solidify their claim. If the Crusaders had used artwork depicting Jesus as looking rather similar to the same people they were on their way to kill, then the Crusades would've suffered. :smilewinkgrin: