Otay brudda ITL, try to restrain. Bite your lip or something. This post is young. Plenty of time to spar later.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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?
- Thread starter T Alan
- Start date
- Status
Otay brudda ITL, try to restrain. Bite your lip or something. This post is young. Plenty of time to spar later.
PreachTony
Active Member
I take it, then, Bro Curtis and T Alan, that neither of you have anything at all in your house that could remotely be construed as a "graven image" of anything that is in Heaven, Earth, or Water?
Didn't I say I didn't push this around ? I simply put up a verse.
But to answer, I don't have any crosses, or pictures of Christ in my house. I have statues of dragons and other such that my daughter made, I have pictures of my family, paintings, wind chimes shaped like sea shells, knick-knacks, stuff everyone has in their house.
But to answer, I don't have any crosses, or pictures of Christ in my house. I have statues of dragons and other such that my daughter made, I have pictures of my family, paintings, wind chimes shaped like sea shells, knick-knacks, stuff everyone has in their house.
A bit of history:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconoclasm
"Iconoclasm noun
Destruction of religious images. In Christianity and Islam, iconoclasm was based on the Mosaic prohibition against making graven images, which were associated with idolatry."
Remember this?
Taliban Dynamites Massive Stone Statues
It's nothing new:
The Reformation in National Context
"Iconoclasm was also a fundamental feature of the French Calvinist Reformation. Going far beyond the traditional, often anonymous and generally limited, gestures, of defiance of the holy power of images, Calvinist iconoclasm was far more aggressively desacralizing. Crucifixes were daubed with excrement and shrines desecrated."
What's left of a wooden panel in Geneva depicting Mary with Jesus (the faces were hacked off):
http://www.lost-painters.nl/wp-cont...h-Child-Geneva-Defasement-910-August-1535.jpg
Similar behavior happened in the Netherlands:
"they urinated on the chalices which held the consecrated wafers and defecated in the vestments. That which had been most holy was converted for the most base purposes: wooden images provided firewood, an altar became a pig's trough"
And even in England:
"St. Mary's church at Oxford had a baroque portal with a Virgin whose head was shot off. All the medieval figures in Ely Cathedral were beheaded. At Cheapside the most beautiful cross in London was pulled down. At Lichfield Cathedral they poured tar over the altar. Dugdale says soldiers polluted the choir with excrement."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconoclasm
"Iconoclasm noun
Destruction of religious images. In Christianity and Islam, iconoclasm was based on the Mosaic prohibition against making graven images, which were associated with idolatry."
Remember this?
Taliban Dynamites Massive Stone Statues
It's nothing new:
The Reformation in National Context
"Iconoclasm was also a fundamental feature of the French Calvinist Reformation. Going far beyond the traditional, often anonymous and generally limited, gestures, of defiance of the holy power of images, Calvinist iconoclasm was far more aggressively desacralizing. Crucifixes were daubed with excrement and shrines desecrated."
What's left of a wooden panel in Geneva depicting Mary with Jesus (the faces were hacked off):
http://www.lost-painters.nl/wp-cont...h-Child-Geneva-Defasement-910-August-1535.jpg
Similar behavior happened in the Netherlands:
"they urinated on the chalices which held the consecrated wafers and defecated in the vestments. That which had been most holy was converted for the most base purposes: wooden images provided firewood, an altar became a pig's trough"
And even in England:
"St. Mary's church at Oxford had a baroque portal with a Virgin whose head was shot off. All the medieval figures in Ely Cathedral were beheaded. At Cheapside the most beautiful cross in London was pulled down. At Lichfield Cathedral they poured tar over the altar. Dugdale says soldiers polluted the choir with excrement."
Reminds me of the Muslims, and their attitude toward depictions of Muhammad.
So what's your opinion on the pictures that are being circulated by the "Christians",falsely as images of The Christ, Jesus of Nazareth? Sacred or Sacrilege?
No "pictures of Jesus" here. No Crosses either. As for the images of the "fake" Jesus, I don't acknowledge one bit as any representative of Christ. So I'm not offended when I see that image in any activity. I don't know who that man is so I don't concern my self with Him drinking, Riding Harleys, shooting guns or anything like that.
I would be more offended to see the one of Him ascending into the heavens with "The Apostles" at his feet as this presents Him as the Christ.
This image would be one, that if I visited a Church and this was displayed I would leave.
***MODERATOR NOTE: Image removed because it exceeded maximum size standard set by BB owners http://media.photobucket.com/user/kimpay2/media/IMG_01011.jpg.html
***MODERATOR NOTE: Image removed because it exceeded maximum size standard set by BB owners http://media.photobucket.com/user/kimpay2/media/IMG_01011.jpg.html
Last edited by a moderator:
You have a nativity anywhere in your house, or church, currently?
No to both, but I would say that I wouldn't have strong objections to the baby in the manger thing as usually the face of the baby is obscure.
As in a Movie that told the Crucifixion story. I wouldn't have as much objection to that as it is known that it is merely an actor playing a part.. But, these other images are tying to be passed off as The LORD Christ Jesus.
For some reason, I also don't get as ruffled by what some one does at their home as what a "Church" does. Although, I would hope Fathers would recognize their roll as spiritual leader and teacher within their homes and not do it. But they are the only ones affected by their home.
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
I have no pictures of wild Bill hanging on the walls or any where else in my home. I don't care much for the nativity thing either as in my opinion it is just another way the world will always see Christ as baby Jesus.
Tom Butler
New Member
Neither. Unless they are objects of worship. Then we've got a problem.
Dr. Timothy George of Southern Baptist 'Founders Ministries' features the beautiful mosaic apse of the Papal Basilica of St. Paul with his essay "Not Just for Catholics":
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/03/not-just-for-catholics
"I am not a Roman Catholic, but I love the churches of Rome. Where else on earth is there such a concentration of hallowed houses of worship, sermons in stone and light, in art and architecture, that reveal so completely the antiquity and historical density of the Christian faith?"
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/03/not-just-for-catholics
"I am not a Roman Catholic, but I love the churches of Rome. Where else on earth is there such a concentration of hallowed houses of worship, sermons in stone and light, in art and architecture, that reveal so completely the antiquity and historical density of the Christian faith?"
PreachTony
Active Member
Just out of curiosity, why is it okay for an actor to play a part that portrays Jesus, but it's wrong to have an image that is said to portray Jesus? Are they not both merely representatives of the same idea? Or do you deal with people who look at an image of Jesus and say "That's actually Jesus. That's the Messiah."
To be perfectly honest, The movie area is still a "Ify" area that to be consistent I should find "wrong", but yes, "That's actually Jesus. That's the Messiah." this is the most troubling scene. Many people believe that picture IS the Messiah.
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?
: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).
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)
If these pictures are present in the Sanctuary or anywhere within the Church, by default that Church has knowingly or unknowingly helped spread the untruth that "this is Jesus the Christ" and created even if in the minds a false god. (If it isn't actually Him, why post a picture of someone else? The mind reasons.)
The image is embedded in the American Mind. IT IS JESUS to most! Don't touch God's anointed.
Simply SUGGEST them being removed. (stand back and be prepared to be marginalized at least, castigated or worse most likely)
If these pictures are present in the Sanctuary or anywhere within the Church, by default that Church has knowingly or unknowingly helped spread the untruth that "this is Jesus the Christ" and created even if in the minds a false god. (If it isn't actually Him, why post a picture of someone else? The mind reasons.)
The image is embedded in the American Mind. IT IS JESUS to most! Don't touch God's anointed.
God was not very happy with pictures either:
Numbers 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
HankD
- Status