Pictures, ANE Idols, Idolatry, and the common sense to know the difference

[The Biblicist]

And here is where I said we disagree. I believe that the prohibition in Exodus regards making images with an intent of idolatry

But that is NOT what the Biblical text states! It prohibits the MAKING and not merely the bowing down to such images. It prohibits making a "LIKENESS" because the INTENT to make them is to produce a VISIBLE GOD as the second commandment must be interpreted IN CONTEXT and all of the first five commandments have to do with the ONE TRUE GOD. Application to anything that may or may not take the place of God BY MISPLACED EMPHASIS is SECONDARY not the primary prohibition. The primary prohibition is MAKING a visible likeness that will REPRESENT and take the place of GOD or "a god" by its very design rather than by misplaced emphasis.

I was not trying to respond in kind, merely pointing out that your comments did not accurately reflect what is known of ANE thought.

I could care less about HUMAN OPINIONS as my argument has been strictly based upon REVEALED DIVINE OPINION, the context, the words used by the Holy Spirit are what condemns your fallacious thinking built upon the opinions of men.

I know from experience that this does not mean I am beyond error or question.

That was not my point and you know it! You arrogantly inferred that I was ignorant of the historical context. However, your "historical" context is nothing but HUMAN OPINIONS that are in directly contradiction to the DIVINE opinion expressed in the BIBLICAL context.

 

[JonC]

But that is NOT what the Biblical text states! It prohibits the MAKING and not merely the bowing down to such images.

You are right that this is not what the text itself states. But the text itself also doesn't state "images of God," it states ANY image. I view the context to focus on idolatry and the images to be of God. You view the context to be images of God alone. But we are both arriving at our conclusions through examining context. We simply disagree.

I could care less about HUMAN OPINIONS as my argument has been strictly based upon REVEALED DIVINE OPINION, the context, the words used by the Holy Spirit are what condemns your fallacious thinking built upon the opinions of men.

I am not speaking of human opinions vs. divine revelation. I am speaking of the need to understand the Old Testament within its own context.

That was not my point and you know it! You arrogantly inferred that I was ignorant of the historical context due. However, your "historical" context is nothing but HUMAN OPINIONS that are in directly contradiction to the DIVINE opinion expressed in the BIBLICAL context.

You are attributing too much to me, Biblicist. I did not arrogantly imply that you were ignorant, although I do see that this is what you have inferred. Just like getting those words mixed up (imply/infer) one can have the knowledge but forget. I noticed that your presentation of pagan ANE thought did not match up with what is known and suggested that you prepare. I meant no harm. What I did not know is that you considered such research as “nothing but human opinions.” I disagree that they contradict Scripture at all. Instead I see understanding ANE thought to magnify Scripture as God’s divine revelation. What research shows is that the Hebrew religion could not have arisen out of the ANE worldview. While there are some shared perceptions, Israel’s view of God is foreign to anything in the world at that time. My “historical context” is God revealing Himself to a pagan world rather than a pagan world discovering God. It is very biblical.

 

[The Biblicist]

But that is NOT what the Biblical text states! It prohibits the MAKING and not merely the bowing down to such images. It prohibits making a "LIKENESS" because the INTENT to make them is to produce a VISIBLE GOD as the second commandment must be interpreted IN CONTEXT and all of the first five commandments have to do with the ONE TRUE GOD. Application to anything that may or may not take the place of God BY MISPLACED EMPHASIS is SECONDARY not the primary prohibition. The primary prohibition is MAKING a visible likeness that will REPRESENT and take the place of GOD or "a god" by its very design rather than by misplaced emphasis.

Here is the real issue. Is the secondment placed in a context designed to preserve reverence for the true God? (God = anything conceived worthy of worship). The answer is yes!

Is the context referring to the INTENT to transfer that reverence to visible LIKENESSES rather than to the one true God? The answer is yes!

Is the text prohibiting the MAKING of any LIKENESS that would be recognized by anyone as God, or a "god" and thus transfer that would pervert the Biblical revelation by this very ACTION of making such an image? The answer is yes!

The primary purpose of this command is not to make this transfer simply by MISPLACED EMPHASIS (although it includes that) but the primary purpose is to PREVENT MAKING any such visible image or likeness that is BY DESIGN INTENDED to be a visible LIKENESS that will be recognized by man as "God" or "a god" regardless if actual ritualized worship is directed to it or not.

Jesus is God, and for any carver, craftsman, sculpter or painter to even have the INTENT to DESIGN or convey any kind of VISIBLE LIKENESS that in the mind of the craftsmen or the mind of the observer would be RECOGNIZED as God is exactly what is prohibited by the second command, as by its very design and IMAGE it transfers the Biblical revelation of God to a PHYSICAL VISIBLE revelation of God. By that very action God there is a mental transfer from the Biblical revelation of God to this visible revelation of God in both the mind of the craftsman and the mind of the person veiwing it and claiming it is God the Son or God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit or "god" of any epitaph.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are right that this is not what the text itself states. But the text itself also doesn't state "images of God," it states ANY image.

You need to interpret by immediate context! You are not interpreting by immediate context. The immediate context of the first five commandments is all about preserving the proper reverence (worship) for the ONE TRUE GOD - all five commandments.

You on the other hand, are stuck on the idea that ANYTHING may or may not be an idol depending upon MISPLACED EMPHASIS as the primary intent of this command. Although that application is INCLUDED it is not the PRIMARY objective of this command. The context shows the PRIMARY objective of this command. The verse before and the verses that follow reveal it is proper reverence for the ONE TRUE GOD that is the PRIMARY focus. Making a visible image of anything designed to be "god" (God the Son) robs God of His glory.

That is why even the MAKING of an image is wrong regardless of what LIKENESS in heaven or earth it may convey to the mind of the craftsmen or audience. The very MAKING of an idol that is recognized in the mind of the craftman or audience to be god or to say it in another way to be worthy of worship = to be god - is wrong! It is wrong because it requires in the mind of the craftsmen and the mind of the audience A PERVERSION of the Biblical revelation of God to even CONCEIVE or RECOGNIZE it to be god or worthy of worship.

What you fail to see is that idolatry is not a mere action or ritual but it is at its source A WRONG PERCEPTION OF GOD as a right perception of God (something worthy of worship) WOULD PROHIBIT THE CONCEPTIONAL DESIGN of ANYTHING that would be conceived/recognized as God (worthy of worship).

Try defining God as equal to "worthy of worship" or "object of worship"! In God's mind to intentionally conceive any visible object to represent God is one and the same thing to produce an object worthy of worship.

 

[JonC]

Here is the real issue.

No, here is the real issue:

And he [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

I understanding what you are saying Biblicist. When I read through your comments I can see areas where my view is not accurately represented but I will take responsibility for that. Perhaps I am inadequate for the task of communicating my position...and so be it...we disagree. It is still in my view that the command centers on idolatry and not "idols" and that "idols" apart from idolatry are mere objects.

 

[JonC]

You need to interpret by immediate context! You are not interpreting by immediate context. The immediate context of the first five commandments is all about preserving the proper reverence (worship) for the ONE TRUE GOD - all five commandments.

You on the other hand, are stuck on the idea that ANYTHING may or may not be an idol depending upon MISPLACED EMPHASIS as the primary intent of this command. Although that application is INCLUDED it is not the PRIMARY objective of this command. The context shows the PRIMARY objective of this command. The verse before and the verses that follow reveal it is proper reverence for the ONE TRUE GOD that is the PRIMARY focus. Making a visible image of anything designed to be "god" (God the Son) robs God of His glory.

That is why even the MAKING of an image is wrong regardless of what LIKENESS in heaven or earth it may convey to the mind of the craftsmen or audience. The very MAKING of an idol that is recognized in the mind of the craftman or audience to be god or to say it in another way to be worthy of worship = to be god - is wrong! It is wrong because it requires in the mind of the craftsmen and the mind of the audience A PERVERSION of the Biblical revelation of God to even CONCEIVE or RECOGNIZE it to be god or worthy of worship.

What you fail to see is that idolatry is not a mere action or ritual but it is at its source A WRONG PERCEPTION OF GOD as a right perception of God (something worthy of worship) WOULD PROHIBIT THE CONCEPTIONAL DESIGN of ANYTHING that would be conceived/recognized as God (worthy of worship).

I understand this. Where we departed was not in defining idolatry but in attributing a picture in and of itself as idolatry. I think we agree on this post more than you recognize. Where I disagreed was the idea that everyone who illustrates Christ in a visual way, or possesses such an image, is committing idolatry.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, here is the real issue:

And he [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Exactly! It is the HEART CONCEPTION of God as DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE that is to be loved, preserved and kept from VISIBLE distortion by IMAGES and ACTIONS. The very INTENT to DESIGN a VISIBLE image/likeness of God or a god is evidence that you no longer love God as revealed in Scriptures but have "MADE" God into some VISIBLE image or conceived likeness.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand this. Where we departed was not in defining idolatry but in attributing a picture in and of itself as idolatry. I think we agree on this post more than you recognize. Where I disagreed was the idea that everyone who illustrates Christ in a visual way, or possesses such an image, is committing idolatry.

Again, you miss the entire point! MAKING any visible image/likeness of God (God the Son, etc.) is the conceptional sin of idolatry as the MAKING of it requires a MENTAL PERVERSION and rejection of the scriptural revelation of the true God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, you miss the entire point! MAKING any visible image/likeness of God (God the Son, etc.) is the conceptional sin of idolatry as the MAKING of it requires a MENTAL PERVERSION and rejection of the scriptural revelation of the true God.

1. Don't replace God with any other god - Commandment #1

2. Since there is no other god in reality then how would one violate commandment #1???? Commandments 2-5 answer this.

a. by perverting the true image of God by making VISIBLE images of such gods (objects of worship = god).

b. by the perverted use of His name - Commandment #3

c. by the perverted use of His creation - Commandment #4

d. by irreverence to God's authority as represented in parents - Commandment #5

So the very MAKING of anything that can be recognized visibly by men to be objects of worship (god) is the act of replacing God before the eyes of men and perverting his nature as any visible image LIMITS the true nature of God the Son and thus PERVERTS his image.

 

[JonC]

Exactly! It is the HEART CONCEPTION of God as DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE that is to be loved, preserved and kept from VISIBLE distortion by IMAGES and ACTIONS. The very INTENT to DESIGN a VISIBLE image/likeness of God or a god is evidence that you no longer love God as revealed in Scriptures but have "MADE" God into some VISIBLE image or conceived likeness.

Yet this picturing of God (mental picturing) is how God has chosen to reveal himself to man. I think we all know that describing God as having "hands" is perhaps a visible distortion (mentally) but it is how we understand. But I agree that it is wrong to replace God with our own image (mentally or otherwise).

So the very MAKING of anything that can be recognized visibly by men to be objects of worship (god) is the act of replacing God before the eyes of men and perverting his nature as any visible image LIMITS the true nature of God the Son and thus PERVERTS his image.

There are people who have and who do create images of cows for worship. Bi-Lo (a grocery store) has a statue of cow on the roof. I dare say that most on this forum wouldn’t view the cow at Bi-Lo to be an idol. I have seen pictures “of Christ” idolized, but I have also seen these pictures as illustrations (not idolized and not idols). Quite simply, I do not believe that all depictions or illustrations of Christ are intended to be worshipped nor are they worshipped. I disagree that this is what is meant by the second commandment.

Yes, the very making of anything that is intended to be objects of worship is idolatry. Placing anything in your life in a position of worship (replacing God) is idolatry. In each case the object is an ‘idol.’ But no, allowing images of Scripture to form in one’s mind is not mental idolatry in and of itself (Scripture is, in form, narrative). Expressing this understanding through media is not in and of itself idolatry.

We simply disagree, Biblicist. But thank you for the comments that engaged the topic. I have found on threads such as this it is often in disagreements that I find the opportunity to learn. You have made some good points and I will keep them in mind although we do not see eye to eye.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet this picturing of God (mental picturing) is how God has chosen to reveal himself to man. I think we all know that describing God as having "hands" is perhaps a visible distortion (mentally) but it is how we understand. But I agree that it is wrong to replace God with our own image (mentally or otherwise).

You would make a great Mormon and a great Catholic but very poor Baptist. Don't you realize that the very idea of anthropomorphic language BY DESIGN is to convey INVISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS by visible illustrations? It is the CONCEPT of the "hand" that convey his works WITHOUT HANDS. It is the concept of the "eye" that conveys his omniscience WITHOUT EYES.

In contrast an "idol" is by design a VISIBLE REPLACEMENT of God in the eye first, then in the mind of beholders.

There are people who have and who do create images of cows for worship.

How many times are you going to perpetuate this nonsense???? You are again confusing and conflating what may or may not be regarded as an idol depending upon MISPLACED EMPHASIS in contrast to what was DESIGNED TO BE GOD in visible form. Don't you understand the difference???? Apparently not, as you keep repeating this confusion of ideas. The Second Commandment is found in THE GOD context and deals directlywith anything INTENTIONALLY BY DESIGN created to visibly portray God (an object of worship). Its conception and its making is sin, REGARDLESS IF ANYONE ACTUALLY ASCRIBES ACTUAL WORSHIP TOWARD IT. Idolizing an image as God begins with providing a visible form to the EYE and that is why God forbids even the MAKING of such an image of God (that which is an object of worship).

I have seen pictures “of Christ” idolized, but I have also seen these pictures as illustrations (not idolized and not idols). Quite simply, I do not believe that all depictions or illustrations of Christ are intended to be worshipped nor are they worshipped. I disagree that this is what is meant by the second commandment.

Again, the sin of idolatry begins in the heart of the artist whereby he even CONCEIVES of a visible image to portray God the Son. The visible image ITSELF is sin as provides an image/likeness that provides for a visible object that represents God the Son. Any visible object designed to represent God LIMITS and thus PERVERTS the true revelation of God.

Yes, the very making of anything that is intended to be objects of worship is idolatry.

Again, your whole argument is based upon conflating and confusing the General principle of idolatry by MISPLACED EMPHASIS with idolatry of PERVERTED CONCEPTION and VISIBLE MISREPRESENTATION regardless if anyone ever worships that object by actions.

The only way you can continue to defend your error is to confuse two completely different things and use one to deny the other.

 

[The Biblicist]

You would make a great Mormon and a great Catholic but very poor Baptist. Don't you realize that the very idea of anthropomorphic language BY DESIGN is to convey INVISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS by visible illustrations? It is the CONCEPT of the "hand" that convey his works WITHOUT HANDS. It is the concept of the "eye" that conveys his omniscience WITHOUT EYES.

In contrast an "idol" is by design a VISIBLE REPLACEMENT of God in the eye first, then in the mind of beholders.




How many times are you going to perpetuate this nonsense???? You are again confusing and conflating what may or may not be regarded as an idol depending upon MISPLACED EMPHASIS in contrast to what was DESIGNED TO BE GOD in visible form. Don't you understand the difference???? Apparently not, as you keep repeating this confusion of ideas. The Second Commandment is found in THE GOD context and deals directlywith anything INTENTIONALLY BY DESIGN created to visibly portray God (an object of worship). Its conception and its making is sin, REGARDLESS IF ANYONE ACTUALLY ASCRIBES ACTUAL WORSHIP TOWARD IT. Idolizing an image as God begins with providing a visible form to the EYE and that is why God forbids even the MAKING of such an image of God (that which is an object of worship).



Again, the sin of idolatry begins in the heart of the artist whereby he even CONCEIVES of a visible image to portray God the Son. The visible image ITSELF is sin as provides an image/likeness that provides for a visible object that represents God the Son. Any visible object designed to represent God LIMITS and thus PERVERTS the true revelation of God.



Again, your whole argument is based upon conflating and confusing the General principle of idolatry by MISPLACED EMPHASIS with idolatry of PERVERTED CONCEPTION and VISIBLE MISREPRESENTATION regardless if anyone ever worships that object by actions.

The only way you can continue to defend your error is to confuse two completely different things and use one to deny the other.

ANYTHING may or may not become an idol due to misplaced emphasis of time, money or committment. However, that is not the primary purpose of the second commandment, although it is included.

The second commandment is found within five commandents designed to protect and preserve the proper concept of God's Nature and Character.

The first command prohibits replacing God with some other god. However, since in reality there are no other real gods, then how can that command be violated??? It can be violated:

1. Second Commandment prohibits intentional making of any visible object with any visible likeness that may be used to serve that purpose. Conceptional design and making it is idolatry regardless if anyone actually acknowledges and uses it for that purpose or not. The CONCEPTIONAL INTENT TO DESIGN and making of a visible image of the Son of God violates this law.

2. Third Commandment prohibits the misuse of His Name as His name represents His true revealed character and nature.

3. Fourth Commandment prohibits the misuse of His creation by sin as the creation is the works of his hands and his works convey the true character of God. The Sabbath reminds them of a creation untouched by human sin.

4. Fifth Commandment prohibits the misuse of His authority that is presented to man at his earliest moments of life through representation of His parents. To rebel against parental authority is the seed of rebellion against God and abuse His authority.

 

[JonC]

You would make a great Mormon and a great Catholic but very poor Baptist.

I know that you believe I am wrong. I view your position as superstitious, a misuse of Scripture, missing the intent, ascribing to material objects a quality that exceeds biblical warrant, and legalistic. We disagree here, I thought that was well established by now.

If you believe that my view against idols is such that produces great Mormons and Catholics, yet poor Baptists, then you have quite a bit to learn about the foundational beliefs of those groups (to include Baptists). This was either a foolish comment on your part, or it demonstrates a lack of knowledge (emotional mendacity or ignorance). Again, our disagreement is whether or not an object is an idol (2nd Commandment idol) if no one worships it. The best example so far has been ancient idols. You say they need to be destroyed because at one time people worshipped them. I insist that without idolaters they are mere objects. You say that illustrated Bibles are evil (the illustrations of Christ are idols) and I believe that they are not. We disagree.

There are, BTW, many Baptists who have crosses in their buildings, use illustrated children’s Bibles, LifeWay materials (yuck), etc. This does not make them less Baptist. Neither does iconoclast tendencies.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you believe that my view against idols is such that produces great Mormons and Catholics, yet poor Baptists, then you have quite a bit to learn about the foundational beliefs of those groups (to include Baptists).

Your argument concerning anthropomorhisms would be loved by Mormons. They just take it one step further than what you do but your argument is inclusive of their approach.

Your argument concerning "images" for the intent for worship only would be loved by Catholics as that is the very basis of their defense for the use of images in their worship rather than objects of their worship AS THEY DENY THEY ARE OBJECTS OF THEIR WORSHIP but only used like the brazen serpent as a visible aide in worshipping the true God. Do you know the difference???

Again, our disagreement is whether or not an object is an idol (2nd Commandment idol) if no one worships it.

It is an idol by the very INTENT of the artist in making it before it is even made. He made it for that intent in mind. Thus idolatry was already committed in the heart of the designer. Recognition by the recipient of the image that it is the Son of God is idolatry, and yet we have not even begun to deal with any kind of mental or emotional reverence there may be directed toward it.

The best example so far has been ancient idols. You say they need to be destroyed because at one time people worshipped them. I insist that without idolaters they are mere objects. You say that illustrated Bibles are evil (the illustrations of Christ are idols) and I believe that they are not. We disagree.

There is no disagreement they are images DESIGNED and MADE by their creator to be visible images of god (objects of worship). No one can dispute that fact. What you deny is that the very CONCEPTION and INTENT in designing it for that end is idolatry in and of itself because you define sin EXTERNALLY only in this case although God does not limit idolatry to your EXTERNAL actions.

There are, BTW, many Baptists who have crosses in their buildings, use illustrated children’s Bibles, LifeWay materials (yuck), etc. This does not make them less Baptist. Neither does iconoclast tendencies.

Again, you never tire of confusing what MAY or MAY not become an idol due to misplaced emphasis with what is BY DESIGN intended to be an object of worship (god). I can only imagine either you can't distinguish between the two (although it has been spelled out repeatedly) or you are intentionally attempting to confuse the reading audiance in order to retain your unbiblical views.

Again, we are talking about images that by design are intended by the craftsmen to be objects of worship. We are not discussing what MAY or MAY not become objects of worship due to improper emphasis.


The large bold print is to emphasize the very thing you are bent on confusing in order to defend your theory.

 

[DHK]

There is no disagreement they are images DESIGNED and MADE by their creator to be visible images of god (objects of worship). No one can dispute that fact. What you deny is that the very CONCEPTION and INTENT in designing it for that end is idolatry in and of itself because you define sin EXTERNALLY only in this case although God does not limit idolatry to your EXTERNAL actions.

Every biblical position must have a practical application.
If all idols must be destroyed, including ANE artifacts, then how would you carry out your belief. You would be breaking more of God's commands. They may involve stealing, destruction of other people's property, breaking and entering, etc. If you are in the ministry, you certainly would not be found as "blameless" in the community, as one who is "above reproach."
How do you go into a museum and smash up all the "idols" or what used to be idols without breaking many of the other commands of God?

 

[JonC]

......

We are discussing three things here (although I understand that you view them as one). ANE Idols (those artifacts that we all view as “idols” but are not actually objects of worship today), idolatry (the worship of idols), and illustrations depicting an interpretation of the image of Christ (we mentioned Christ Pantokrator icons, paintings of the “Last Supper,” and illustrations in children’s Bibles). Frankly I don’t care about Catholics denying that their veneration is worship, as I previously said the “proof is in the pudding.” I don’t care if Mormons believe Scripture uses anthropomorphisms to relate aspects of God in a meaningful way…if they believe that then they are correct – God doesn’t really have hands, He is Spirit.

You don’t have to verify our disagreement. I have already (repeatedly) said that we disagree. I understand what you are saying (typing) and I still disagree. What more can I say except that you are wrong? ANE idols are mere objects and we are not called to destroy them. If you hold an ancient Egyptian idol of the goddess Nut then you merely hold an object in your hand, not even an object of idolatry anymore. Thinking that you are somehow obedient or pleasing to God by destroying the object is paganistic idolatry in itself (certainly not Baptist doctrine).

You argued on the last thread that images of Christ were idols regardless of the intent of the artist (then that they were” mental images replacing God” type nonsense). Although they were never intended to be objects of worship, they are nonetheless images “of Jesus.” If you have changed your mind and these illustrations are now fine then we can chalk that one of our list. If not, what do you think the best method of destroying them is…burn the Bibles or simply tear out and burn the pictures?

Every biblical position must have a practical application.

Yes, and this is why the commandment centers around idolatry and not mere objects. It doesn't matter the object, idolatry is the sin. This is even more apparent, I believe, when one considers the view of idols contemporary to the giving of the Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

Every biblical position must have a practical application.
If all idols must be destroyed, including ANE artifacts, then how would you carry out your belief. You would be breaking more of God's commands. They may involve stealing, destruction of other people's property, breaking and entering, etc. If you are in the ministry, you certainly would not be found as "blameless" in the community, as one who is "above reproach."
How do you go into a museum and smash up all the "idols" or what used to be idols without breaking many of the other commands of God?

I never said the Christian was responsible for stealing or destroying other people's property. That was Jon's accusation and conclusion not mine. I never said the artifact had spiritual qualities, as that was jon's accusation and conclusion not mine - "No one is attributing to the physical objects spiritual qualities!" - TB post #15

What I said, is the designing and making of an image as a "god" (Son of God) cannot be performed without committing idolatry in the heart by the maker, as he must first mentally reject and/or pervert the biblical revelation of God in order to conceive God in a mental image that he then makes visual in a physical image. That violates the second commandment IF interpreted in its context. The Second commandment prohibits not merely bowing down but the making of any image toward that end. Hence, the maker of the image must first mentally conceive and make a mental connection between what he conceives to be god and how that conception is to be visualized in a physical image.

Furthermore, when the viewer of the idol acknowledges it to be god or the Son of God, that acknowledgement is an idolatrous state of mind as it rejects or perverts the true nature of God (Son of God) by that very acknowledgment. For that viewer to THINK and then to SAY "that is God (Son of God)" requires a mental repudiation of the true nature of God (Son of God) which cannot be limited to a visible image without perverting and rejecting His true nature.

In addition, I said that the intentional making of an image to be god is satanically conceived as much as false doctrine is satanically conceived.

Idolatry is a STATE OF MIND before it is a STATE OF ACTION both with the image maker and the image viewer. This state of mind has its origin with DEMONIC leadership.

 

[The Biblicist]

We are discussing three things here (although I understand that you view them as one).

No, "YOU" are discussing three things not "we." I am discussing just ONE thing - the intentional designing of an image to be god (God the Son) and those who receive it as such - period! You have introduce ANE artifacts and misplaced emphasis on anything which may become an idol in order to conflate and confuse the readers and to justify your theory.

The mental conception of an image of god with intent to design and produce a visible image of god (Son of God) is rooted in demonic leadership and is an act of an idolatrous state of mind in making it to be god because the very mental state required to design and make it is rejection or perversion of the revelation of the true nature of the true God. That STATE OF MIND and MAKING violates the Second commandment IF it is interpreted in context of the first five commandments which are all concerned with preserving the position, worship, authority and nature of the true God of the Bible.

The act of acknowledgement and recognition of that image as God (Son of God) by the viewer of that image requires an idolatrous state of mind, as any such acknowledgment is a mental state of repudiation/distortion of the nature of the true God (Son of God). As I previously said, the object itself, regarded abstractly apart from conception by either the image maker or the image receiver is nothing as it is merely stone, canvas and paint or a block of wood. However, demonism is rooted in the concrete thought processes of both the maker and the veiwer BEFORE ANY VISIBLE EXTERNAL ACT of idolatry is ever committed.

Idolatry is a STATE OF MIND before it is a STATE OF ACTION both with the image maker and the image viewer. The state of mind that conceives, designs and makes it or perceives it to be an image of god is an idolatrous state of mind. This state of mind has its origin with DEMONIC leadership.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, "YOU" are discussing three things not "we." I am discussing just ONE thing - the intentional designing of an image to be god (God the Son) and those who receive it as such - period! You have introduce ANE artifacts and misplaced emphasis on anything which may become an idol in order to conflate and confuse the readers and to justify your theory.

The mental conception of an image of god with intent to design and producing a visible image of god (Son of God) is rooted in demonic leadership and is an act of an idolatrous state of mind in making it to be god because the very mental state required to design and make it is rejection or perversion of the revelation of the true nature of the true God. That STATE OF MIND and MAKING violates the Second commandment IF it is interpreted in context of the first five commandments which are all concerned with perserving the position, worship, authority and nature of the true God of the Bible.

The act of acknowledgement and recognition of that image as God (Son of God) by the receiver of that image requires an idolatrous state of mind, as any such acknowledgment is a mental state of repudiation/distortion of the nature of the true God (Son of God). As I previously said, the object itself, regarded abstractly apart from conception by either the image maker or the image receiver is nothing as it is merely stone, canvas and paint or a block of wood. However, demonism is rooted in the concrete thought processes of both the maker and the receiver BEFORE ANY VISIBLE EXTERNAL ACT of idolatry is ever committed.

Idolatry is a STATE OF MIND before it is a STATE OF ACTION both with the image maker and the image receiver. The state of mind that conceives, designs and makes it or perceives it to be an image of god is an idolatrous state of mind. This state of mind has its origin with DEMONIC leadership.

1. Jon and DHK will you agree that idolatry is first a STATE OF MIND before it is manifested in external actions? Yes, or no!

2. Will you agree that the very mental conception to design an image for the very purpose to visualize god is a mental state of idolatry as it requires to pervert/distort and repudiate the true nature of God? Meaning, the maker of the idol is intentionally trying to convey/associate his conception of God with a visible image. That very transition in thought from his conception of god to implementing that conception into a visual image by its very nature LIMITS the true nature of God and thus distorts and repudiates the true nature of God. Hence, God forbids even the making of an image with that concept and intent in mind, that it will be associated with god by either the maker or the viewers.

3. Will you agree that the very mental state of recognition by the viewer that the image is a god (Son of God) is a mental state of idolatry as it requires to pervert/distort and repudiate the true nature of God (Son of God)? This recognition is defined by asking "who is that?" and they respond "that is Jesus the Son of God." That is their mental recognition and reception of that image. In order for that direct mental association between their own perception of God and the visible image of God the Son to take place, it requires LIMITING the true nature of the Son of God, thus perverting and repudiating His true nature.

4. Will you agree that any MENTAL STATE whereby God is perceived to be visualized/recognized/associated with and by a visible image is not due to the leadership of the Holy Spirit but is rooted in demonic influence?

I will agree that the image considered ABSTRACTLY apart from either the maker's or the viewers state of mind OR actions is nothing but wood, stone, canvas or matter, and thus neither good or evil in and of itself. Of course I already acknowledged that in post #15 and I quote "No one is attributing to the physical objects spiritual qualities!" That idolatry begins IN THE HEART and with the heart defined by intent, design, recognition, association with and reception of any image to be god or representative of any god.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will agree that the image considered ABSTRACTLY apart from either the maker's or the viewers state of mind OR actions is nothing but wood, stone, canvas or matter, and thus neither good or evil in and of itself. Of course I already acknowledged that in post #15 and I quote "No one is attributing to the physical objects spiritual qualities!" That idolatry begins IN THE HEART and with the heart defined by intent, design, recognition, association with and reception of any image to be god or representative of any god.

The Corinthians in their own minds, denied the image to be god and believed it was nothing in and of itself. However, that did not change the demonic influence and demonic presence, and even if their own mind rejected it, they were still communing with demons by their simple presence where idolatry by others was being conducted. So it is not true that the right frame of mind in regard to identifying the material substance as nothing, frees one from communing with demons when they choose to attend for other reasons where others do view and act toward that image as if it were god or associated with their concept of god. Hence, a Christian communes with demons by their actions even if their attitude is correct, when they choose to be present in the midst of idolaters.

Therefore, images designed to be god (God the Son) or to associate it with god (God the Son) in the minds of the maker and/or viewers is demonic in origin. Therefore, the MINDSET as well as the PRACTICE of idolatry is due to demonic presence and influence.

Not to change the subject, but when Christians choose to attend false churches or work in association with those where "another gospel" is being preached they are communing with demons as demons are present and actively leading those who preach "another gospel" - 1 Tim. 4:1