Images said to be Christ;Sacred or Sacrelege?

[JonC]

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.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[T Alan]

It's hard to imagine there are people who actually think this way.

I assume by "think this way" that you refer to those that think the pictures at the beginning of this post are indeed Jesus? I don't find it hard to believe that people who were raised in Churches and homes that had have these images to "believe" that's Jesus Christ, I mean why would the Church have a picture of "Ralph" on the walls? It would take a degree of study to realize that "there were no pictures or painting of Jesus" prior to several hundred years after the fact .That same facial image is as TOM said "in the Sunday School literature" et cetera.

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.

This is difficult for me to comprehend. "Knowing" thousands from different faith backgrounds. Wow. I know less than 50 personally that aren't main line evangelicals.

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.

What else would they mean to depict. What image is seared into the mind of the children from "Childrens Church" onward? Here's you a test, take a picture of the Long blonde hair, blue eyed, bearded man (Cesare Borgia) and conduct a poll of kids and adults with the simply question "Who is this"?
I await your results.

The argument that Jesus would have appeared this way, or that….it’s astounding, if you think about it.

I can understand an "argument" regarding the thoughts. It's a natural wonder about His image but, What I can't fathom is why the Church would hang these and use propagate the thinking it is Jesus by disseminating the pictures.

Just out of curiosity, those who think this way, do you think the painters believed they were picturing Jesus’ physical characteristics?

You wrote, "this way". I'm not sure what this references but as for my opinion, I would feel assured that the Artist's knew that it wasn't Jesus. But that doesn't mean that the current folk which pass it off as Jesus don't assume, especially Children, that it is actually Him.

Do you really not realize that these paints/sculptures, etc, were never intended to accurately portray the physical appearances of their subjects,

No, and I would say that nor does the majority of the children that are fed this crap.

“argue anything if it supports me” kinda thing?

I'll let this one pass without a more defensive comment.

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.

I don't see where this was ever said nor implied by anyone on this thread.
I would say not having and not propagating the image as Jesus would bring one into closer adherence/obedience to the teaching of God concerning "images that are worshiped".

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.

Again, Reverend Mitchell, I nor anyone who has commented thus far has done as you suggest. It was asked for opinion "Sacred or Sacrilege". "Test of Holiness" are your words.

I wonder, if you will, do you have knowledge if the Natives on the reservation where you live, that are "Believers" have any Images of "Jesus" if so, do they "look like Native Americans" or would it be the " blonde hair, blue eyed" guy?

As I wrote earlier:

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:

Interesting observation.

 

[Revmitchell]

I wonder, if you will, do you have knowledge if the Natives on the reservation where you live, that are "Believers" have any Images of "Jesus" if so, do they "look like Native Americans" or would it be the " blonde hair, blue eyed" guy?

Let me assure you, you do not know where I am at or what knowledge I have about any Natives. Or even if I should.

 

[JonC]

I'll let this one pass without a more defensive comment.

Thanks…I wasn’t taking the offense (I don’t have “pictures of Jesus” in my home either) nor was I speaking of you in particular. I was just making an observation that some quickly pick up an argument, regardless of its validity, merely because it facilitates their agenda. Here the assumption is that if a person has a “picture of Christ” then they are venerating that picture or ignorant to the fact that it is not representative of Jesus’ physical appearance. It’s an erroneous assumption (although it may be true in some cases).

What else would they mean to depict. What image is seared into the mind of the children from "Childrens Church" onward? Here's you a test, take a picture of the Long blonde hair, blue eyed, bearded man (Cesare Borgia) and conduct a poll of kids and adults with the simply question "Who is this"?
I await your results.[/I]

They are meant to depict what the artist had in mind. Like you said, the artists knew that what they were painting was not the actual physical appearance of Jesus. What then, do you think they were trying to convey through the media? What they depict (or at least what the author tries to communicate) are those qualities and attributes that Scripture ascribes to Christ and often biblical scenes as well. Whether or not one takes it this way has nothing to do with the painting and more to do with the person.

No, and I would say that nor does the majority of the children that are fed this crap.

I can’t comment about what the majority of children think of these pictures as I have no idea, but my son never took it that way. Obviously most children (and adults) take it as symbolic of Jesus, but as an actual representation of his appearance….I don’t know. Perhaps if we merely depended on picture books and never really worked with our children then you’d have a point. Do you realize that thus far what you stand for is nothing more than what you stand against? You have a very reactive theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is there a common opinion held by Baptist regarding the images that are depicting and image of "Christ"? Sacred or Sacrilege?

Yes, these are all idolatrous images that no Christian or church should have in their possession.

The Second Commandment forbids to make any LIKENESS especially of God and Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Idolatry begins IN THE MIND with a wrong MENTAL IMAGE of God. The Scriptures are the revelation of God and that revelation makes it impossible to make any kind of visible image (graven, printed, painted, etc.) without distorting and perverting the revelation of God in Scriptures.

Jesus Christ is revealed in Scriptures as an uncommonly ugly man:

he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. - Isa. 53

The images of Jesus pervert this Biblical revelation of him. He is God in the flesh. The second command forbids making LIKENESSES of anything in heaven and Jesus is in heaven, or on earth, and Jesus was on earth. For anyone to deny these images of Christ are not RELIGIOUS images is like denying the Bible is a RELIGOUS book.

The Scriptures are given to provide the mind with the proper MENTAL image of God which is one of INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES (holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.), which is IMPOSSIBLE to convey that image in material form.

Baptists who hang this so-called likeness, image, of God the Son in their churches are as idolatrous as the Roman Catholic church with their paintings hanging on the twelve stations of the Cross and their images.

 

[Zenas]

I assume by "think this way" that you refer to those that think the pictures at the beginning of this post are indeed Jesus? I don't find it hard to believe that people who were raised in Churches and homes that had have these images to "believe" that's Jesus Christ, I mean why would the Church have a picture of "Ralph" on the walls? It would take a degree of study to realize that "there were no pictures or painting of Jesus" prior to several hundred years after the fact .That same facial image is as TOM said "in the Sunday School literature" et cetera.

No, you assumed wrong. I was referring to you and the way you think. Everybody (well almost everybody) knows that these images of Jesus are artists' concepts of what Jesus looked like. It's not something remarkable at all. They are common and very diverse, although the blue eyed long haired Jesus preponderates in our culture. Go to Mexico and you will observe a Latino looking Jesus. In Africa you will see images of a Negroid Jesus.

This is difficult for me to comprehend. "Knowing" thousands from different faith backgrounds. Wow. I know less than 50 personally that aren't main line evangelicals.

You don't get out much, do you?

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

You need to get out more! What don't you understand about the word "likeness" OR "image"?????? The Scriptures also classify Paintings in this same category of expressing an IMAGE or LIKENESS.

Christianity is so CAHTHOLICZED they no longer understand the meaning of "IMAGE" or "likeness".

What is it that you don't understand of "ANYTHING" in heaven or in earth???? This is just plain scripture forbidding artists, whether they are scuplture artists, painting artists, carving artists from doing this very thing. Who do you think makes images if not such artists with their PROFANE conceptions of God and Jesus is God.

 

[The Biblicist]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I guess this is the opinion of those who can't understand "image" or "likeness" or "painting" and throw out the Ten commandments!

Whether you are a scuplture artist or a painting artist or a carving artists, as these are the kind of artists who are responsible for making such images and it is forbidden.

What is it that you don't understand about the word "ANYTHING" in heaven or on earth? What is it you don't understand about the meaning of "image" or "likeness"?

Who gave you the right to throw out these texts, change their meanings just to suit your own fancy? Both you and the Rev. are completely and utterly mistaken.

 

[PreachTony]

I guess this is the opinion of those who can't understand "image" or "likeness" or "painting" and throw out the Ten commandments!

Whether you are a scuplture artist or a painting artist or a carving artists, as these are the kind of artists who are responsible for making such images and it is forbidden.

What is it that you don't understand about the word "ANYTHING" in heaven or on earth? What is it you don't understand about the meaning of "image" or "likeness"?

Who gave you the right to throw out these texts, change their meanings just to suit your own fancy? Both you and the Rev. are completely and utterly mistaken.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here, Biblicist...are you saying that art is forbidden?

That's my take away, as the literal reading of the scripture states no image of anything in Heaven, in Earth, or in Water. Therefore, all artwork is forbidden.

Now, if we could just find a way around that pesky bit of scripture where God commanded them to make ornamental pomegranates for the temple, and to put the image of cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant... (and yes, please understand there is a strong undercurrent of facetiousness in this post from me) :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JonC]

I guess this is the opinion of those who can't understand "image" or "likeness" or "painting" and throw out the Ten commandments!

Funny, I was thinking the same of you before I even got to this post. My understanding is that the commandment deals with idolatry (not merely images), therefore it is the act of idolatry rather than possessing an image of something in heaven and earth that is being addressed. We differ on interpretation here. As long as you are against any type media that bears an image of something on heaven on earth (photographs of grand kids, landscapes, etc.), then at least you are consistent (if not, you are hypocritical), although we still disagree.

 

[Revmitchell]

therefore it is the act of idolatry rather than possessing an image of something in heaven and earth that is being addressed.

Which is really obvious and should not have to be explained. Sad it does.

 

[OldRegular]

As I wrote earlier:

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:

Well said and I appreciate you reposting your earlier comments. Some people fail to either remember or understand that in His human nature Jesus Christ was a Jew!

When I posted my remarks I thought I was posting early and did not read beyond the first page!

 

[Zenas]

You need to get out more! What don't you understand about the word "likeness" OR "image"?????? The Scriptures also classify Paintings in this same category of expressing an IMAGE or LIKENESS.

Christianity is so CAHTHOLICZED they no longer understand the meaning of "IMAGE" or "likeness".

What is it that you don't understand of "ANYTHING" in heaven or in earth???? This is just plain scripture forbidding artists, whether they are scuplture artists, painting artists, carving artists from doing this very thing. Who do you think makes images if not such artists with their PROFANE conceptions of God and Jesus is God.

The commandment against graven images was never understood as an absolute and universal prohibition of any kind of image. Throughout the Old Testament there are instances of representations of living things, which were not in any way worshipped, but used lawfully. Some were even ordered by the law as ornaments of the tabernacle and temple. These statues and images made and used with full approval of the Jewish authorities show that the words, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image", were not understood to be absolute and literal prohibitions. And, Biblicist, why might that have been? Because they read scripture in context. Whenever you read of the prohibition of graven images, you find that God didn’t want people worshiping them. God did not, and does not, care what kind of images people make. But He does object in the strongest way if people worship those images.

It’s context, Biblicist, CONTEXT. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[T Alan]

Let me assure you, you do not know where I am at or what knowledge I have about any Natives. Or even if I should.

How can you assure me of what I know or don't know? That's ridiculous. lol, I have google, remember, and you are in the "public Eye" Pastor.

Yes, these are all idolatrous images that no Christian or church should have in their possession.

The Second Commandment forbids to make any LIKENESS especially of God and Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Idolatry begins IN THE MIND with a wrong MENTAL IMAGE of God. The Scriptures are the revelation of God and that revelation makes it impossible to make any kind of visible image (graven, printed, painted, etc.) without distorting and perverting the revelation of God in Scriptures.

Jesus Christ is revealed in Scriptures as an uncommonly ugly man:

he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. - Isa. 53

The images of Jesus pervert this Biblical revelation of him. He is God in the flesh. The second command forbids making LIKENESSES of anything in heaven and Jesus is in heaven, or on earth, and Jesus was on earth. For anyone to deny these images of Christ are not RELIGIOUS images is like denying the Bible is a RELIGOUS book.

The Scriptures are given to provide the mind with the proper MENTAL image of God which is one of INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES (holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.), which is IMPOSSIBLE to convey that image in material form.

Baptists who hang this so-called likeness, image, of God the Son in their churches are as idolatrous as the Roman Catholic church with their paintings hanging on the twelve stations of the Cross and their images.

The Calvary has arrived!

No, you assumed wrong. I was referring to you and the way you think. Everybody (well almost everybody) knows that these images of Jesus are artists' concepts of what Jesus looked like.

And what pray tell are they basing their concept on? Certainly not the bibles account. Because, None available except, hair white as wool, etc. cf. Revelation.

It's not something remarkable at all. They are common and very diverse, although the blue eyed long haired Jesus preponderates in our culture. Go to Mexico and you will observe a Latino looking Jesus. In Africa you will see images of a Negroid Jesus.
You don't get out much, do you?

I get out very time they unlock the cell.:tongue3:
So people (around the world) are trying to make God into their image. Where have I heard this before.

 

[Gib]

I have google, remember, and you are in the "public Eye" Pastor.

Rev may have a stalker

 

[T Alan]

Rev may have a stalker

Big Dave, how dare you call me a possible stalker.:flower:

 

[T Alan]

Since this "is not Jesus" Just some guy, do you consider "IT" blasphemy? If so how can it be since it's NOT Jesus.

\



I say yes, because of the "pierced hands", regardless of the person. Sacrilegious.

 

[HankD]

We also have the serpent of brass which it would seem that God directed Moses to make in the wilderness (which he did) which had to be gazed upon in order to live after being bitten by said serpent.

Another image allowed by God.

And OBTW, the money (paper or metal) you have in your wallet or purse has a mixed message for the Christian.

It says "IN GOD WE TRUST" yet has the all seeing eye of ISIS/HORUS along with several other verbotten images all over the front and back.

The Hebrew shekel historically had no image.

So anyone who has twinges of guilt concerning the breaking of the commandment contact me by email I'll send you my snail mail address and you can send me your Pagan, idolatrous currency, I will dispose of it for you.

HankD

 

[T Alan]

I say this isn't. No affiliation with any thing Scriptural. Thoughts?

 

[The Biblicist]

We also have the serpent of brass which it would seem that God directed Moses to make in the wilderness (which he did) which had to be gazed upon in order to live after being bitten by said serpent.

So, you could be a Catholic comfortably according to your reasonings as they employ the very same reasonings you do. The subject is making a visible image of God - Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

First, the brazen serpent was not an image of God and it was ordained by God but who gave anyone authority to produce an image of the Son of God????? God certainly did not!

Second it was ordained by God for a specified reason and not as an object of worship.

Third, Hank what do you think was the reason given in the Bible for destroying the brazen serpent???????

And OBTW, the money (paper or metal) you have in your wallet or purse has a mixed message for the Christian.

It says "IN GOD WE TRUST" yet has the all seeing eye of ISIS/HORUS along with several other verbotten images all over the front and back.

The Government is responsible for publishing money. You and I are responsible for what we hang in our churches and homes as a religious image.

The paper money is not issued for worship but for finances. Second, we have no control over what goes on government money but we certainly have control over what we hang in PLACES OF WORSHIP and in OUR HOMES that we know is an image of God.