Which is a false representation and Idolatry.:BangHead:
Idolatry doesn't have anything to do with the image. It has to do with the one who worships idols. A picture representing Christ is an idol if it idolized by a person. Think man! :tongue3:
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!
Which is a false representation and Idolatry.:BangHead:
Maybe if you'd slow down long enough to realize that I am saying these images are not replacing God's revelation (they are not revealing God)
then you'd stop arguing that I am saying these images are revealing God.
I understand what you are saying, Biblicist, and I disagree.
Again, we find that we have something in common.You have no clue to what I said and it is apparent by your complete distortion of what I said.
Then tell me. What are the perversions that these images are communicating?First, I never said these images "are revealing God"! I said they are PERVERTING what scripture reveals about God's true nature.
Then tell me. What are the perversions that these images are communicating?
Again, we have spelled these perversions out at least twice already.
1. In regard to God, he is INVISIBLE - Hence, any VISIBLE image is a perversion of what and who God is and Jesus is God.
2. In regard to Christ as a man, the Scriptures clearly state he was UGLY:
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. - Isa. 53:2
He is a Jew with semetic features not a man with Caucasian features (blue eyes, pointed nose, etc.).
He is a Nazarine NOT a Nazerite with long hair.
3. In regard to Christ as God man - all images of God are prohibited because all visible images pervert His Person as God and man.
So you think that the painters failed because they didn’t paint an ugly Jew with short hair? Did you ever consider for a moment that the paintings were not attempts to communicate the actually physical image of Christ (and therefore not "perversions" in that regard)?
For any artist to even make an attempt to visibly express God in visible form is proof that the mind of the artist does not accept or is ignorant of the revelation of who and what God is. Jesus is God and to merely provide a human expression is to LIMIT and thus PERVERT the true Biblical revelation of the true Jesus of the Bible.
Here is the difference. That is God's written revelation to man. If you took the description of Jesus given in Revelation chapter one, and to the best of your ability made an image, a drawing, or a statue of it, would it be correct according to the Ten Commandments? The answer is no.God is Spirit. He is omnipresent. Do you think that it is perversion to think of God as sitting on a throne? What about using anthropomorphic imagery to communicate the works of God? Was the biblical writer wrong and perverting the image of God to describe God as having "hands"? Was it wrong for his audience to understand God's works in that context?
Here is the difference. That is God's written revelation to man. If you took the description of Jesus given in Revelation chapter one, and to the best of your ability made an image, a drawing, or a statue of it, would it be correct according to the Ten Commandments? The answer is no.
God is Spirit. He is omnipresent. Do you think that it is perversion to think of God as sitting on a throne?
What about using anthropomorphic imagery to communicate the works of God?
Was the biblical writer wrong and perverting the image of God to describe God as having "hands"?
Was it wrong for his audience to understand God's works in that context?
But if we take the commandment as referring specifically to images (apart from one making the image an idol) then should we also not avoid photographs (of our kids, parents, etc.), landscapes, drawings (of actual things on earth....or in heaven)? If we take it as literally forbidding images of anything on heaven and earth, then we don't really have the authority to choose where to apply it.
His works are in character with His nature. It is through His works that He is known. Are you saying that it is OK to paint God as long as it is descriptive of the “works of His hands”? You are making no sense here. Did you not have to take art classes on your journey to seminary (at least as an undergraduate)? Anyone who did, and was attentive, should know that it is not necessarily a physical representation that is being presented. It is often certain qualities that are being painted. There is no difference in religious art.Do you make a distinction between the PERSON of God and his WORKS?
Anthropomorphism . Anthrop (human) + morph (shape) + ism (quality of). If you break it down you may learn to spell it (don't forget the extra "o").God is the one who uses this anthropormorphic expression and so inspired the writers to speak this way. However, the very concept of anthropormohicism is a denial that he does in fact have hands or else you don't understand the meaning and use of anthropomorhicism.
But they are not His nature, as God can be distinguished from his creation. The image is of God not of His works.His works are in character with His nature.
It is through His works that He is known. Are you saying that it is OK to paint God as long as it is descriptive of the “works of His hands”?
Did you not have to take art classes on your journey to seminary (at least as an undergraduate)? Anyone who did, and was attentive, should know that it is not necessarily a physical representation that is being presented.
It is often certain qualities that are being painted. There is no difference in religious art.
Anthropomorphism . Anthrop (human) + morph (shape) + ism (quality of). If you break it down you may learn to spell it (don't forget the extra "o").
I have never understood this argument; it has never made sense to me.I understand in that instance. It is not the image, but the idolatry (and perhaps there is a good case to keep another from stumbling into idolatry or a weaker brother from viewing the picture as a sin). Your illustrations makes a good point.
But if we take the commandment as referring specifically to images (apart from one making the image an idol) then should we also not avoid photographs (of our kids, parents, etc.), landscapes, drawings (of actual things on earth....or in heaven)? If we take it as literally forbidding images of anything on heaven and earth, then we don't really have the authority to choose where to apply it.
Think back to your art class. Was the sculpture of David intended at a minimum to be inclusive of David as a person (how he actually looked) in addition to other qualities? Of course not, no one in their right mind would think so. It does show David preparing for battle and evokes images of God using the boy for His glory. It does try to help us identify with that scene. But no one even suggests that the image itself "looks like" David, or for that matter was meant to "look like" David. Likewise, my point is that most of these pictures are not intentionally drawing the "person of Jesus." And here is where we really disagree (the only around it is to ask the author).There is no difference UNLESS you are intentionally drawing a Person, and then it at minimum is inclusive of that Person in addition to what it may or may not represent beyond that.
Apparently you are so smart your mind can’t keep up. I know how you feel...just glad I could help out. :laugh:I know how to spell a lot of words that are wrongly spelled due to speed and lack of spell check. I am glad you are around to point out those things though.
I have never understood this argument; it has never made sense to me.
"I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt not make any graven images (of me) [CONTEXT].
the sculpture of David
It does show David
Likewise, my point is that most of these pictures are not intentionally drawing the "person of Jesus."
Exodus 20:4
or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
You are right, it is context. I think it speaks to idolatry, not what may be one's idol.
JonC