• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
T Alan said:
I say this isn't. No affiliation with any thing Scriptural. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I guess the issue is that one desecrates how another Christian symbolizes God. Whether or not the image is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' physical image is not relevant (not any more relevant than using a translation of the name "Jesus" to refer to the Christ). I have to ask, do you consider it unchristian to refer to the Messiah as “Jesus” rather than Ἰησοῦς?

And again, your theology...your faith...is based so much on what you deny rather than what you affirm that I have to wonder if it is real. Do you believe it is appropriate to desecrate what has become symbols of Christ to many? Is this any different than profaning the name of Christ? Why or why not? Would you object or rejoice if someone referred to you as "Lucifer"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

T Alan

New Member
JonC said:
I guess the issue is that one desecrates how another Christian symbolizes God. Whether or not the image is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' physical image is not relevant (not any more relevant than using a translation of the name "Jesus" to refer to the Christ).
Click to expand...
The translation is legit. The image is a hoax.

JonC said:
I have to ask, do you consider it unchristian to refer to the Messiah as “Jesus” rather than Ἰησοῦς?
Click to expand...
No, JonC I don't.

JonC said:
And again, your theology...your faith...is based so much on what you deny rather than what you affirm that I have to wonder if it is real.
Click to expand...
I wished I understood what you mean here. Regardless, You can wonder all you like. This is a "discussion" forum. These issue's are discussion matter. As you see from the others who have like thought, I am not alone.


JonC said:
Do you believe it is appropriate to desecrate what has become symbols of Christ to many?
Click to expand...
"Symbol of Christ" is it biblical, if No, then I have no issue with it. As I said about the "smoke ring" pic, because of the "pierced hands" I feel it is inappropriate at least. As for the other, I said, it's not Jesus I have no Issue with it.

JonC said:
Is this any different than profaning the name of Christ? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Yes, God gave Him His name, His name is Who He is. He affirms this when He tell's us to "Pray in His name" The image is "man made" of a man.


JonC said:
Would you object or rejoice if someone referred to you as "Lucifer"?
Click to expand...

Really? It depends on how often one did this. If once, I would neither object or rejoice, I would stare at them with my best "really" facial expression.. Surely I wouldn't appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
T Alan said:
Yes, God gave Him His name, His name is Who He is. He affirms this when He tell's us to "Pray in His name".
Click to expand...
What name? The actual Hebrew name that God gave Him or our picture (translation) of that name (“Jesus”)? Surely you don’t believe that we should pray in the name of “Jesus” since this is not what God actually said, but a symbol in our language of His name! Translations are representatives of words, which are representatives of ideas. “Jesus” was a foreign name to first century Judaism.
T Alan said:
I am not alone.
Click to expand...
I imagine you are not…although I don't see any relevance to that claim.
 
T

T Alan

New Member
JonC said:
What name? The actual Hebrew name that God gave Him or our picture (translation) of that name (“Jesus”)? Surely you don’t believe that we should pray in the name of “Jesus” since this is not what God actually said, but a symbol in our language of His name! Translations are representatives of words, which are representatives of ideas. “Jesus” was a foreign name to first century Judaism.
I imagine you are not…although I don't see any relevance to that claim.
Click to expand...

The name in one language versus that name in another language verses a translation versus a transliteration of "That" name is "non comparable" to A picture of "someone" that is offered as someone that's likeness is unknown.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
T Alan said:
The name in one language versus that name in another language verses a translation versus a transliteration of "That" name is "non comparable" to A picture of "someone" that is offered as someone that's likeness is unknown.
Click to expand...


You are right. It is no comparison. It is identical.
 
Gib

Gib

Active Member
T Alan said:
same here (gagagagagaga) looking forward to the cruises.
Click to expand...

picture.php
[/IMG]

This guy thought there was a prize at the end too.
 
Z

Zenas

Active Member
T Alan said:
The Calvary has arrived!
Click to expand...
I think you mean "cavalry."

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.
Click to expand...
Why must they base their concept on anything? People have imaginations, artists have very vivid imaginations. Artists create things all the time that they have never seen and have little or nothing to guide them.

What did Michelangelo base his concept on when he did the statue of David?

Your rhetorical question reminds me of a little vignette I read several years ago.

A little five year old girl is busy with her crayons in kindergarten.

Teacher: “Jenny, what are you drawing?”

Jenny: “God. I’m drawing a picture of God.”

Teacher: “But no one knows what God looks like.”

Jenny: “They will as soon as I finish drawing this picture of Him.”
So people (around the world) are trying to make God into their image. Where have I heard this before.
Click to expand...

I dunno, where have you heard it before?
 
HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Biblicist said:
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???????
Click to expand...

It was an image of Jesus Christ come in the flesh

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Yes, the Hebrews ended up making the serpent image an object of worship.

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.
Click to expand...
Under the law possession of images whether worshiped or not of any kind were forbidden, both publicly and/or privately under any situation (religious or profane) apart from the explicit direction of God Himself.

Also, the NT scripture expands the scope of the definition of "idol" and "idolatry"...

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

HankD
 
Last edited:
The Biblicist

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Zenas said:
The commandment against graven images was never understood as an absolute and universal prohibition of any kind of image.
Click to expand...

No kidding!!! Obviously, as I have my picture and the picture of my family and others throughout our homes. Artists and sculptures have countless pictures and statutes that they have produced by God given talent. But that was not my point or the point of the command.

You are missing the very point of the context. The first commandment sets the stage. God is prohibiting REPLACEMENT of him by ANYTHING else called "god." In the Second commandment any kind of REPLACEMENT begins with a FALSE MENTAL REPRESENTATION of what man calls god by which artists (sculpture, painters, wood carvers) provide a visible image of the god of their imagination.

Now, if some artist sculpted, carved or painted God the Father and God the Holy Spirit that is idolatry because it manifests a PERVERTED MENTAL expression of God that REPLACES and thus violates the REVELATION given in Scripture for the PROPER MENTAL view of God.

Likewise, any artistic expression of God the Son is idolatry because it provides a PERVERTED MENTAL EXPRESSION of God the Son contrary to, and a REPLACEMENT of the REVELATION provided in Scripture. It REPLACES God the Son as much as any visible image would replace and PERVERT the BIBLICAL REVELATION of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. If you asked the artist who is that in the picture? He would say that is "God the Father" or "God the Holy Spirit"!

The Biblical revelation of Jesus Christ is that he was an UGLY man (Isa. 53:2-3). He was NOT a Nazerite like John but from Nazereth thus WITHOUT LONG hair. He was virgin born semetic, not a German blue eyed iligitimate offspring from a Roman Germanic soldier of German Rationalism that denied the virgin birth. However, even if an artist portrayed an ugly short haired semetic Jew, this still perverts and replaces the correct Biblical image of Christ as he is more than than just a mere man but God who cannot be visibly expressed without PERVERTING God's revelation of Himself in Scriptures.

The Bible was given to us to REVEAL the true God for our minds to grasp the BIBLICAL REVEALED IMAGE which cannot be put into any kind of visible form without PERVERTING God's revelation of Himself and REPLACING the Biblical revelation as our sole MENTAL IMAGE of God by some other perverted image.

Idolatry BEGINS IN THE MIND WITH A PERVERTED IMAGE of God. Any visible expression of a PERVERTED MENTAL IMAGE OF GOD is idolatry as it serves to PERVERT and REPLACE the proper mental image supplied by Scripture.

Ask any child that looks at that painting, "who is that?" They will tell you that is Jesus! That is the MENTAL IMAGE they have of Christ which is not a Biblical MENTAL IMAGE of Christ but a PERVERTED image of Christ that REPLACES the image supplied by God's Word for our minds. It is "another Jesus" than revealed by God's Word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top