1. 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!

Featured Images said to be Christ;Sacred or Sacrelege?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by T Alan, Dec 16, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,285
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  2. T Alan

    T Alan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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.


     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,285
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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).

    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.
    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.
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    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.
     
    #85 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2014
  6. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    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.
    You don't get out much, do you?
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    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.
     
    #87 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2014
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    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.
     
  9. PreachTony

    PreachTony Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    2
    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:
     
  10. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,285
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which is really obvious and should not have to be explained. Sad it does.
     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    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!
     
  13. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    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:
     
  14. T Alan

    T Alan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.

    The Calvary has arrived!

    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.



    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.
     
  15. Gib

    Gib Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    27,256
    Likes Received:
    14
    Rev may have a stalker :rolleyes:
     
  16. T Alan

    T Alan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    2
    Big Dave, how dare you call me a possible stalker.:flower:
     
  17. T Alan

    T Alan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since this "is not Jesus" Just some guy, do you consider "IT" blasphemy? If so how can it be since it's NOT Jesus.


    [​IMG]\



    I say yes, because of the "pierced hands", regardless of the person. Sacrilegious.
     
    #97 T Alan, Dec 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2014
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
  19. T Alan

    T Alan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    2
    I say this isn't. No affiliation with any thing Scriptural. Thoughts?

    [​IMG]
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    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???????



    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.
     
    #100 The Biblicist, Dec 19, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...