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

What is the difference between the second and third commandments?

 

Correct me if I am wrong.
[FONT=&quot]Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:[/FONT]
--This concerns the production of images that eventually will turn into idols.
No heart motive is mentioned. It is much like Demetrius in Acts 19.
It could be the ones in the RCC that produce the many images or crosses, crucifixes, etc. They don't worship them, just make them.

[FONT=&quot]Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;[/FONT]
--This is the actual sin of idolatry--the bowing down to the images that represent the gods behind the idols or images.
Correct?

 

Knowledge is key.
The Roman Catholics venerate or worship Mary. They have "idols" of her mass produced. They may not care who does it, as long as the job is well done. Therefore it is possible that it may be contracted out to a non-Catholic business. If so, the "idol" isn't an idol to that business. But he has the knowledge that he is producing an idol, and therefore it is wrong. It would be wrong for you and I to go into production and reproduce images of Mary for the RCC, wouldn't it? We have the knowledge that people would worship it.

You gave the example that people, like the rich young ruler, turned away from Christ for he loved his riches more that he loved Christ. Money became his idol. So it is today. But the US Mint in America that produces America's money isn't committing any sin as they put out money just because some may worship it. They do as that money comes between them and God. The Mint does not have that knowledge. Neither is that money made in the image of God or a god. Mary is worshiped as a god, and is made in the image of "Mary."

The fact that money can be an idol does not hold the US mint accountable. The money is not made in the image of God. The sin is in the believer who allows anything to come between him and God.
But to make an image, that is an image of God, or an image that is worshiped as God, such as Buddha or Mary, is wrong.
Do you see the difference.

 

I think here we can have some degree of "compromise" and agree. Ancient artifacts, especially in museums fall into a different category--historical. I don't think they would need to be destroyed. I doubt if they would be worshiped either. I wouldn't take it that far.
As far as the "eye" on the money, there is not much we can do about that. I think most people are ignorant of it. What would have been more obvious to the public would have been the image of Caesar who demanded worship as a god. His image was on every coin. Jesus said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. He never spoke against the image of Caesar. It was the currency of that day, image or no image.

I used to be a Catholic. I would never admit to idolatry then. Now I have to admit it was idolatry because of my knowledge of the Bible. I would come into a church and bow on one knee before a large crucifix that is representing God on the cross. That IMO is idolatry, even though I didn't consider it as such at the time. The carving represents Christ or God. Thou shalt not bow down to it, and I, in traditional reverence, did.

The cross is simply the crucifix without Christ. It used to be that no Protestant church had any cross. It is a symbol of Catholicism. It is not a biblical association. It is not "the cross" of the bible. When Paul said "I glory in the cross," that meant the total sufferings of Christ, all that made up our redemption--not just a wooden stick. If the adornment were to relevant she would wear an image of an electric chair or something similar. It was the method of execution of that day. It was gross and terrible. What possible good could come of beautifying a blood stained gory cross with gold and wearing it around your neck. It gives the wrong impression.

As for the picture, it also comes from Roman Catholicism, and from the imagination of a man who had never seen Christ nor knows what Christ looked like. The "image" of Christ, whom we are to be conformed to, is wrong. His image is more "hippie" like. It is very likely that Christ had short hair. He was a carpenter by trade.

You have, and on some matters we have to agree to disagree.

 

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

Perhaps I missed it, but what does "ANE" mean? Probably a stupid question.

 

If you are going to represent my argument then do it correctly instead of the nonsense you posted above. I said no such thing. Go back and read what I said. You had claimed that the artist was not giving any visible likeness to any mental concept he had of the gods or god being conveyed. How do you know if he was or was not? That would take omniscience to know that the visible expression he gave did not come from his/her own mental concept of the gods or god that he claims to be expressing in a visible image.

In contrast, I claimed that the mental concept and its mental design to convey a visible likeness of God or a god (Christ is God) is just as much idolatry as any reverence given to the image once having been made.

Second, what you claim to be superstition, the Bible claims to be reality. Demons are behind false doctrines and that is a MENTAL reality (1 Tim. 4:1). They are also behind idols (1 Cor. 10:20-22). The Corinthians were making the very same boast you are! They were boasting that the idol was no god and therefore, they could attend the feasts and purchase their meats cheaper there because they were not attending to worship idols, as the idols were nothing. Paul told them that a supernatural presence attending the idols and all who were in attendance were actually communing with demons.

 

Thanks. Had not heard the abbreviation before.

 

This is an absurd argument. The Second commandment is speaking of idolaters making images that bear the "LIKENESS" of what they are worshipping!

Again you are claiming omniscience in that you actually believe you can speak for all ancient peoples and all ancient idolaters.

Another ridiculous argument! Paul starts with the MIND not with the visible image or action. Idolatry is first a MENTAL action before it is ever a VISIBLE action:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

This is an absurd argument. The Second commandment is speaking of idolaters making images that bear the "LIKENESS" of what they are worshipping!


Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Again you are claiming omniscience in that you actually believe you can speak for all ancient peoples and all ancient idolaters.

Another ridiculous argument! Paul starts with the MIND not with the visible image or action. Idolatry is first a MENTAL action before it is ever a VISIBLE action:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Another ridiculous argument! How do you get permission from a non-existent deity?????? The MENTAL conception that gave rise to visible expression is idolatry as much as any visible action of bowing down, praying toward it, etc.

Another ridiculous argument! Demons at work in the MIND bring forth the conception of such and idol according to Paul or don't you know about trying the spirits? That false doctrine (mental concepts) originate with demons (1 Tim. 4:1). That demons accompany the demonically conceived images (1 Cor. 10:20-22)??? No ritual is necessary to have demonic presence although the whole worship ritual that attends has its origins with demons as well.

This is pure ignorance on display! God certainly did not conceive such thoughts in them to produce such an idol or image! No one said the artists "infused them with some power" as that is another perverted twisted straw man argument. It is THE IMAGE itself that is wrong due to the DEMONIC produced thinking that leads up to producing it in violation of the Second Commandment condemns making the LIKENESS. It is the production of the LIKENESS of a god, or gods conceived by design that is inseparable from idolatry.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

It is about time you grow up spiritually and recognize what you are doing is idolatrous by defending idolatry. No one is attributing to the physical objects spiritual qualities! However, these idols, like false doctrine are demonic by design and use, as they were not conceived by any leadership of the Spirit of God in either their concept, design or making. They are demonic in origin, concept/design and making as well as in use for worship. To simply claim that only the use is demonic is absurd, as their conceptional origin and design are just as demonic. That is like saying murder is only the actual visible taking of life. No murder is the heart intent and design whether it is ever carried out visibly or not.

 

Two points!

1. There are things that may or may not be used for idolatry as anything can be an idol.

2. However, I am talking about the production of a visible likeness that by intentional conception and by design was to portray the likeness of God (Jesus is God) or a god.

In your responses you pit one against the other or defend one while ignoring the other and that accounts for your inconsistencies and abuse of my statements.

Thus the intentionally production of God as a visible image is a MENTAL SIN because the proper MENTAL conception of God forbids the INTENT to design or produce any visible likeness of God. Therefore, the artists (sculpter, carver, painter, etc.) who merely embraces the THOUGHT to make a visible representation of God has already committed idolatry in his heart as his very THOUGHTS are idolatrous in nature as the very THOUGHT of making a visible expression demands a MENTAL PERCEPTION that already PERVERTS the revelation of God in the Scriptures. Those who embrace with their THOUGHTS the revelation of God in Scriptures, those very THOUGHTS repudiate any kind of INTENT to make a visible likeness of ANY KIND for ANY PURPOSE that they themselves or others would mentally or visible ASSOCIATE to be God (Christ is God).

Those who mentally take up the task of designing a visible portrait of Jesus Christ that they or others can conceive of ASSOCIATING with Jesus Christ have violated the Second commandment that forbids even MAKING such a "LIKENESS" which can be ASSOCIATED with God in any visible form.

Of course not! Any argument that exposes your fallacious thinking is of no consequence in your already made up mind.

What arrogance! I am a college graduate, a seminarian graduate and have read, studied and taught the Old Testament for over 40 years and you arrogantly imagine that I have never studied the Old Testament in its historical context???? What arrogance! Of course, this is the best you can do, so I should not expect anything less.

 

WOW! you guys have debated in over 100 exchanges and show no signs of stopping or swaying. :applause: (standing):applause::applause: