Are images of Jesus idolatry?

Elfkind · Jun 1, 2018

I'm having problems with what seem like a uncritical use of images of what one traditionally imagined Jesus to look like, as a European looking male with dark long hair and beard. For example the Sixtine Chapel that was painted by Michelangelo for the Pope and viewed as perhaps the greatest painted masterpiece ever, where God is pictured just like the old Greek gods, for example Zeus, being an old, bearded and serious man having authority and wisdom, and Roman depictions of gods with bird-wings, is what still is used to depict angels as the old nymphs and the devil as a faun, and seems like the definition of idolatry to me: To make images of a God and the heavens, that the bible clearly state that nobody have ever seen, or perhaps only Moses, and still be alive to tell the tale. A God not being of thoughts or the ways of man, nor living in a normal time/space-existence. Or simply absolutely above what simple mortals might imagine.

During the Iconoclasm in the Greek Orthodox Church, it was finally descided that Jesus might be depicted after all, since he clearly was a man during life, and again during the reformation a new Iconoclasm made any paintings or statues of saints and God being destroyed or painting over, but then again this seem to have been forgotten since then. In Revelation John on Patmos clearly meet the Christ as He is after having risen to Paradise and an overwhelmingly powerful sight to behold, that don't seem to follow the rules of normal, physical existance, for example having a sword coming out the mouth, seemingly being a symbolical sort of "apparition", hard to put into logics.

So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

Barney2.0 · Jun 1, 2018

Alv Vatzdal said:
I'm having problems with what seem like a uncritical use of images of what one traditionally imagined Jesus to look like, as a European looking male with dark long hair and beard. For example the Sixtine Chapel that was painted by Michelangelo for the Pope and viewed as perhaps the greatest painted masterpiece ever, where God is pictured just like the old Greek gods, for example Zeus, being an old, bearded and serious man having authority and wisdom, and Roman depictions of gods with bird-wings, is what still is used to depict angels as the old nymphs and the devil as a faun, and seems like the definition of idolatry to me: To make images of a God and the heavens, that the bible clearly state that nobody have ever seen, or perhaps only Moses, and still be alive to tell the tale. A God not being of thoughts or the ways of man, nor living in a normal time/space-existence. Or simply absolutely above what simple mortals might imagine.

During the Iconoclasm in the Greek Orthodox Church, it was finally descided that Jesus might be depicted after all, since he clearly was a man during life, and again during the reformation a new Iconoclasm made any paintings or statues of saints and God being destroyed or painting over, but then again this seem to have been forgotten since then. In Revelation John on Patmos clearly meet the Christ as He is after having risen to Paradise and an overwhelmingly powerful sight to behold, that don't seem to follow the rules of normal, physical existance, for example having a sword coming out the mouth, seemingly being a symbolical sort of "apparition", hard to put into logics.

So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

It’s not idolatry unless there’s actual worship going on with the icon or statue which would make it a graven image, however many people mistake acts of veneration such as bowing or kissing an icon or statue as worship when in reality, is a sign of respect.

Elfkind · Jun 1, 2018

Al Masihi said:
It’s not idolatry unless there’s actual worship going on with the icon or statue which would make it a heaven image, however many people mistake acts of veneration such as bowing or kissing an icon or statue as worship when in reality is a sign of respect.

Hi, thanks for your answer. The second of the 10 commandments clearly state that "make unto thee any graven image" is wrong in itself. To have "other Gods before Me", the first commandment, is another debate. Clearly I understand that people don't worship these images, but I do see that having these images, make people use them for blasphemy too, just like they use things that have been done or said wrongly "in the name of God", to sow doubt about faith and the righteousness of God.

Sabertooth · Jun 1, 2018

In Christ, it is a matter of conscience and where the Holy Spirit has brought you to thus far.

From my present POV, there are three categories of Jesus images,

Those that are intentionally created to be idols,
Those that are not intentionally created for that purpose, but can easily be adopted as such,* &
Those that serve as illustrations, like in illustrated Bible stories.

(I am only comfortable with #3.)

*My past experience with art suggests that not only do we not know what Jesus looked like, but the men who posed for the various portraits could very well prove to be anti-Christians, themselves. (Could you imagine the emotional dissonance that would occur if the Anti-Christ turns out to look like one of the more common images of Jesus...!?)

Heavenhome · Jun 1, 2018

I do not agree with any portrayals of Jesus at all, firstly because we do not know what he looks like and are not told by God. For me that must be for a very good reason- we aren't supposed to know!

So whether it is idolatry or not?
Well there's no getting away from the fact that some do bow down to these images.

So to me everything to do with images/portraits of Jesus is wrong.

Inkfingers · Jun 1, 2018

There were images decorating the inside of Solomon's temple...

1 Kings 6:22
1 Kings 6:34-35

FenderTL5 · Jun 1, 2018

Alv Vatzdal said:
I'm having problems with what seem like a uncritical use of images of what one traditionally imagined Jesus to look like, as a European looking male with dark long hair and beard. For example the Sixtine Chapel that was painted by Michelangelo for the Pope and viewed as perhaps the greatest painted masterpiece ever, where God is pictured just like the old Greek gods, for example Zeus, being an old, bearded and serious man having authority and wisdom, and Roman depictions of gods with bird-wings, is what still is used to depict angels as the old nymphs and the devil as a faun, and seems like the definition of idolatry to me: To make images of a God and the heavens, that the bible clearly state that nobody have ever seen, or perhaps only Moses, and still be alive to tell the tale. A God not being of thoughts or the ways of man, nor living in a normal time/space-existence. Or simply absolutely above what simple mortals might imagine.

During the Iconoclasm in the Greek Orthodox Church, it was finally descided that Jesus might be depicted after all, since he clearly was a man during life, and again during the reformation a new Iconoclasm made any paintings or statues of saints and God being destroyed or painting over, but then again this seem to have been forgotten since then. In Revelation John on Patmos clearly meet the Christ as He is after having risen to Paradise and an overwhelmingly powerful sight to behold, that don't seem to follow the rules of normal, physical existance, for example having a sword coming out the mouth, seemingly being a symbolical sort of "apparition", hard to put into logics.

So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

As you mentioned, this was addressed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council after the iconclasm inspired by the Islamic position of rejecting and destroying devotional and liturgical images. So, the idolatry issue has already been settled.

I'm not a fan of the Jesus as a blond-haired blue-eyed European version. The icon of Christ in our house does not follow that model.

Heavenhome · Jun 1, 2018

Sabertooth said:
In Christ, it is a matter of conscience and where the Holy Spirit has brought you to thus far.

From my present POV, there are three categories of Jesus images,

Those that are intentionally created to be idols,

Those that are not intentionally created for that purpose, but can easily be adopted as such,* &

Those that serve as illustrations, like in illustrated Bible stories.

(I am only comfortable with #3.)

*My past experience with art suggests that not only do we not know what Jesus looked like, but the men who posed for the various portraits could very well prove to be anti-Christians, themselves. (Could you imagine the emotional dissonance that would occur if the Anti-Christ turns out to look like one of the more common images of Jesus...!?)

Your last paragraph is EXACTLY what myself and my brother has talked about for a long time.
Just picture this, what would be a perfect way for Satan to deceive the world?
If you show anyone, non Christians alike a picture of the popular portraits of "Jesus"
and ask who it is I can practically guarantee that they will say Jesus.
Why?????
What better thing could Satan, in his mind do but deceive the whole world that, that picture is Jesus.
Just think about it...........
And what IF that were what the anti Christ himself looked like? To be on walls, churches, Christian homes, wow the mind boggles!
We don't know.........
But we do know we DON'T know what Jesus looks like so why take the chance?
If we needed to know God would have told us for sure.

Sabertooth · Jun 1, 2018

IIRC, Aaron called the golden calf, Yahweh.

Right name, wrong image.

carolina16 · Jun 1, 2018

Think that illustrating Him is the same as illustrating the Father. It is a lack of respect because you do not know how He is visually.

Elfkind · Jun 1, 2018

Thank you all for good, informative answers. I feel that I agree with the definition :

Sabertooth said:
In Christ, it is a matter of conscience and where the Holy Spirit has brought you to thus far.

That if one feel that something is a sin, and still does it, one is sinning. To follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather then the wisdom of man. That is exactly my idea in this. Many might find it soothing to have a picture of Jesus crucified on their wall, and something used to confess their faith to the world, such as having neclaces with a cross, but personally I feel a bit like Peter, that I'm not worthy of this, or John the Baptist not even feeling worthy to touch Jesus' sandals. I would never carry around a giant cross on Via Dolorosa, or do anything else where I toughtlessly use what is Holy for presenting an image of myself as a zealous, pious person. This go against scripture.

FenderTL5 said:
As you mentioned, this was addressed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council after the iconclasm inspired by the Islamic position of rejecting and destroying devotional and liturgical images. So, the idolatry issue has already been settled.

I personally, as an artist myself, do agree that there's lots of masterfully crafted and really beautiful Eastern Orthodox icons. I would far prefer these then the usual, sentimental images of Jesus as in Latin depictions, or for that sake movies about the bible with handsome movie-stars to play the role of a suffering Christ. But when it comes to the Seventh Ecumentical Council, I don't find this to be of any authority to my faith, as it is the opinions of man, that went as far as dividing groups of people that debated violently about the nature of the Son, Father and Holy Spirit - something that I can't possibly imagine that anyone can ever do - and made up an answer that seemed to satisfy these wise men enough to make it a dogma. That is what I find to be troubling, that these are all things done by man, and apparently without using sources such as the sayings of Jesus or His apostles.

Sabertooth said:
*My past experience with art suggests that not only do we not know what Jesus looked like, but the men who posed for the various portraits could very well prove to be anti-Christians, themselves. (Could you imagine the emotional dissonance that would occur if the Anti-Christ turns out to look like one of the more common images of Jesus...!?)

This is a bit the same thing as I tried to express with how the images can be, as they already are, a tool to be used by the Enemy. For example Charles Manson, that did look like "Jesus", convinced his "family" that he himself was Christ, using LSD to fool naive girls about this enough to make them to commit mass-murder.

Bobber · Jun 1, 2018

I don't have an artist picture of Jesus hanging up in my home but if I did I'd find it offensive for one being in my home claiming I've sinned. I think those are areas where let everyone in their own mind decide.

SkyWriting · Jun 1, 2018

Alv Vatzdal said:
I'm having problems with what seem like a uncritical use of images of what one traditionally imagined Jesus to look like, as a European looking male with dark long hair and beard. For example the Sixtine Chapel that was painted by Michelangelo for the Pope and viewed as perhaps the greatest painted masterpiece ever, where God is pictured just like the old Greek gods, for example Zeus, being an old, bearded and serious man having authority and wisdom, and Roman depictions of gods with bird-wings, is what still is used to depict angels as the old nymphs and the devil as a faun, and seems like the definition of idolatry to me: To make images of a God and the heavens, that the bible clearly state that nobody have ever seen, or perhaps only Moses, and still be alive to tell the tale. A God not being of thoughts or the ways of man, nor living in a normal time/space-existence. Or simply absolutely above what simple mortals might imagine.

During the Iconoclasm in the Greek Orthodox Church, it was finally descided that Jesus might be depicted after all, since he clearly was a man during life, and again during the reformation a new Iconoclasm made any paintings or statues of saints and God being destroyed or painting over, but then again this seem to have been forgotten since then. In Revelation John on Patmos clearly meet the Christ as He is after having risen to Paradise and an overwhelmingly powerful sight to behold, that don't seem to follow the rules of normal, physical existance, for example having a sword coming out the mouth, seemingly being a symbolical sort of "apparition", hard to put into logics.

So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

Images are not allowed.
Nobody follows the rule.

Stabat Mater dolorosa · Jun 1, 2018

Iconoclasm vs iconostasis...
This is an old dispute that goes back to the early church. The iconoclasm has been fought of many times in the past, but keeps coming back for some reason.

Calvin and the Anabaptists were against visual tools in the Christians spiritual life in opposition to the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran AND the English reformation.

The great majority seems to appreciate visualisations of Christ and Holy men and women, but some fractions of Christianity still seems to keep on with their opposition.

Ken Rank · Jun 1, 2018

Alv Vatzdal said:
So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

The answer to the question is, it depends. Remember what God had built onto the top of the Ark of Covenant? Two Cheribim, two angels... statues. Is it wrong? No, "unless they are bowed to... submitted to." A picture of Yeshua isn't bad (although since we don't really know what he looked like, we are filling our mind with something that probably isn't accurate) but if it becomes a source of power for us... we need to be before it when we pray, we talk to it as if him, and so forth... then it becomes an idol.

The commandment says not to make images or idols "and bow to them."

JAM2b · Jun 1, 2018

I'm not comfortable with images of Jesus. There was a time when I really wanted to know what Jesus actually looked like so I could have a authentic idea in my mind of Him. It was a futile distraction. Instead of living my life with Him, I was searching for what was not needed, and I already had what I did need.

Plus, it doesn't matter what He looked like. It doesn't matter that we don't know. People think it inspires faith and devotion or some kind of proof. But it really doesn't. All it does is have an effect on temporary human emotions. I think people who rely on this have a very fragile faith, relaying on something physical or visual, when it is the spiritual that we should be seeking.

John 20:29 says, "Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

All these images and claims of physical proof of Jesus are nothing but a source of distraction and conflict. An interesting point is that the images of Jesus often look like the artist's or sculptor's race. I believe some of it is a hoax.

I'm not all that comfortable with crosses either. The authentic thing is a device of torment and death. The ones people buy and display, whether it is jewelry or an outdoor structure are money makers for the people who produce and sell them. They are marketing faith and God.

Chinchilla · Jun 1, 2018

Alv Vatzdal said:
I'm having problems with what seem like a uncritical use of images of what one traditionally imagined Jesus to look like, as a European looking male with dark long hair and beard. For example the Sixtine Chapel that was painted by Michelangelo for the Pope and viewed as perhaps the greatest painted masterpiece ever, where God is pictured just like the old Greek gods, for example Zeus, being an old, bearded and serious man having authority and wisdom, and Roman depictions of gods with bird-wings, is what still is used to depict angels as the old nymphs and the devil as a faun, and seems like the definition of idolatry to me: To make images of a God and the heavens, that the bible clearly state that nobody have ever seen, or perhaps only Moses, and still be alive to tell the tale. A God not being of thoughts or the ways of man, nor living in a normal time/space-existence. Or simply absolutely above what simple mortals might imagine.

During the Iconoclasm in the Greek Orthodox Church, it was finally descided that Jesus might be depicted after all, since he clearly was a man during life, and again during the reformation a new Iconoclasm made any paintings or statues of saints and God being destroyed or painting over, but then again this seem to have been forgotten since then. In Revelation John on Patmos clearly meet the Christ as He is after having risen to Paradise and an overwhelmingly powerful sight to behold, that don't seem to follow the rules of normal, physical existance, for example having a sword coming out the mouth, seemingly being a symbolical sort of "apparition", hard to put into logics.

So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

Anything can be , There was serpent on stick that made people live when they were biten by snake . God made it for Israel when they repented of thier sins because snakes were attacking them and killing them but later on it became Idol and people used to worship so it was destroyed for that cause .

To sum it up , even good things in our eyes can be idols .
Pictures of Jesus are definitely idols tho.

Albion · Jun 1, 2018

Alv Vatzdal said:
So I wonder if anyone else have had thoughts that using these paintings of a perfectly looking Jesus, as something totally normal and what people should have placed on the walls in their home, or for example in signatures of users in this forum?

Nope. Never have. I think the settlement in the Iconoclast controversy was correct.

And as for the racial characteristics, every culture has produced images of Christ or the Virgin looking more or less like their own people. There is nothing there to get upset or worried about.

faroukfarouk · Jun 2, 2018

Heavenhome said:
I do not agree with any portrayals of Jesus at all, firstly because we do not know what he looks like and are not told by God. For me that must be for a very good reason- we aren't supposed to know!

So whether it is idolatry or not?
Well there's no getting away from the fact that some do bow down to these images.

So to me everything to do with images/portraits of Jesus is wrong.

I guess part of the point is that in the Lord Jesus is bound up the fulness of glory and truth and eternal blessings: so to try to reduce Him him to a painted image is in a sense an exercise in failure, which can detract people from the glory and truth which resides in Him in all its fulness.

"We love Thee for the glorious worth which in Thyself we see;
We love Thee for the shameful Cross endured so patiently." (Joseph Stennett)

Are images of Jesus idolatry?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Well-Known Member

Somebody's heretic

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Well-Known Member

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Jesus Christ is the Lord

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Fading curmudgeon

Similar threads