Images of Jesus, right or wrong?

TuxAme said:

I'm not too horribly concerned with what race people might portray Jesus as, and I'm not too worried about whether or not the artist portrays Him with long hair and a beard, either. All I'm concerned with, for the purpose of the thread, is whether it's right to make an image of Him at all. So let's not bother discussing how Jesus should (or shouldn't) be portrayed unless we've come to agreement on the legitimacy of portraying Him in the first place.

Now, you're quoting from Exodus. Are you suggesting that bowing down to an image is the same as serving the image, rather than what the image represents? If I kneel in front of a crucifix, am I serving the wood and plaster rather than the Lord whose image it bears? I would have no reason to serve the crucifix before realizing Who it represents, but now that I know Who it is being represented, you suspect that I am turning around and serving the wood and plaster that I earlier refused?

Or do you instead recognize that God isn't jealous of mere images made by the hands of men? but rather, His jealousy is sparked when we make of that image more than what it really is? In other words, it's what we make of an image that makes it bad. I doubt that God would be upset at the mere presence of the golden calf. Again, it's what the Israelites made of it that sparked His jealousy. Those of us who recognize the rightful place of religious imagery don't make the mistake that they made. We neither treat the combination of wood, plaster and paint as something divine of its own, nor (unless we're referring to an image of Jesus, the Holy Spirit or the Father) do we recognize the person the image is of to be divine, either.

God made use of images Himself, as you mentioned. For example, the bronze serpent. He both ordered its creation, and instructed the Israelites to look at it to be saved from the serpents that had been afflicting them (side note- curious how God desired to use an image of a creature to save the Israelites from the actual creatures). All that looked at it were saved. Though this thing, which once had a very righteous purpose- later became an idol to them. And so, King Hezekiah had it destroyed. This seems to prove my theory, that God doesn't hate the images in themselves, but what we make of them.

You fall into idolatry when you attribute more worth to an object than it- or the thing it represents- deserves. Merely creating or owning the image isn't enough to fall into this sin, as Scripture shows. Why do you suggest otherwise?

Click to expand...

Crosses are not actual depictions of God. The command to make the brass serpent was not a depiction of God (Although later, it was regarded as an idol and King Hezekiah destroyed it). Why did he destroy it if it was not the object that was the problem? See, idols are not just images of anything. Idols are images of God. That is what Exodus 20:4-5 is saying. It is saying not to create images so as to bow down to them. We bow down to God. So this is saying we do not create images that represent God. For how can we capture God with a chisel or a brush with paint? It is impossible.

Anyways, in Deuteronomy 7:25, God tells His people to destroy their idols. Why would God tell them to destroy such idols if they could merely keep the idols around and just not regard them as idols anymore? In other words, this lets us know that just having the idols is wrong.

When I say idol: I am saying any image or object that a group of men revere as being like a god or deity or any object or image that men use to contact their god or a being that they give god like powers to. Men did not have a problem with worshiping statues of serpents at the time in honor of a false god when God told Moses to make one. Men did not make statues of angels in honor of a false god at the time God told Moses to build the Ark with two Cherubim on it.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Jesus never told us to do a lot of things yet we do them all the same. The question is whether or not the act of veneration constitutes idolatry, not whether Jesus condoned it. Doing only what Jesus commanded leaves us with limited options to what we can and should not do every day. You haven't established that kissing the scripture is like kissing the idol of a calf. The intent is obviously not to worship the book but to show reverence for what the book represents (God's teaching). The same goes towards Icons of the Saints, Angels and Jesus himself. Calling the act itself pointless when it obviously has a deep meaning towards those who do it is a little less than charitable.You are deeming the actions done by people like myself as being akin to Judas, as not being true affection. I can tell you those who actually kiss the cross are doing it out of sincerity, at least I hope so, certainty I do.

Icons are deliberately non-literal depictions. Jesus probably didn't go around wearing scarlet red and blue robes yet these are symbolic of his majesty and person. Orthodox Iconography is deliberately stylized in that way, to evoke the spiritual truth as well as the material truth of the matter. Furthermore I would contest that icons need to literally depict what a person looks like in order to be legitimate, they do not and to suggest they do is to incorporate a type of legalism that Icons do not need.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I compare you to Judas. I merely used Judas as a part of my illustration to make a point about what I believe is a wrong belief. Nowhere am I trying to make it personal or about you.

The problem I see is that Jesus never told us to love objects or things on this Earth. We never once seen Him or His disciples revere objects in the way that you say. In fact, the teachings of Jesus run contrary to giving affection to inanimate objects. Jesus says do not put your treasure in Heaven. God says we are not to even be concerned with our daily needs and that we are to seek first the Kingdom of God. Jesus told his disciples to forsake all that they had and to follow Him and they did just that. In Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus says we are not swear by anything and he points to inanimate objects (like the temple) and says that they are nothing. Jesus says put your treasure in Heaven and not here upon this Earth. If you are kissing something down here on this Earth, you are putting your treasure here upon this Earth. But moth and dust will corrupt the things of this world that you kiss. They will fade away and be no more (Except God's Word that is forever settled in Heaven that you cannot kiss). We are to invite the poor stranger in our home for a meal and we will then have great treasure in heaven.

Following the teachings of Jesus is antithetical to materialism. Following the teachings of Jesus is about a denial of self and in loving others and not objects.

Athanasius377 said:

That is not what anyone is saying. The problem here is Christological. Because God was incarnate in Jesus who really was man (and God) in space and time he can be depicted. That image is not to be bowed down to or worshiped or served. It is not God rather it is an image depicting the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. To say that one cannot depict Jesus is in a sense denying his humanity. We do not depict God the Father as no one has seen him (John 1:18). Jesus was seen by those in close proximity during his earthly ministry and could be seen by the sense of sight. This is a property of having a physical body which according to scripture in the doctrine of the Incarnation Jesus does possess.

To put it another way, I have an Orthodox Icon of Jesus on my wall. I purchased it because I agree with the theology that it depicts via image. At no time have I ever thought that it was God in and of itself, nor have I ever felt the need to bow down and serve this Icon. No one has ever seen felt that it should be worshiped either. If people began to worship this icon I would remove it immediately but so far that has never happened.

Click to expand...

People bowed down to Jesus. People will bow down to Jesus in the future. This is because He is God. Jesus will forever has His human body.

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25).

"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." (Revelation 1:18).

You cannot separate the human body of Jesus from the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity. They are now forever one. Yes, the body is just a temple or a shell. But without that body, there would be no redemption for any of us. Without the second person of the Godhead or Trinity (i.e. the Eternal Living Word), the body would not being operating and it would be lying on the floor or ground. Surely, the picture you have of Jesus is one where He is awake with His eyes wide open. This means that the second person of the Godhead or Trinity is giving life to that body and operating it 100%.

So Jesus is God (even in the flesh).
You cannot separate the flesh and say that God is not on the inside of the body of Jesus.
That wouldn't make any sense.
So no. The picture you have of Jesus is a representation of God because Jesus is God. He is the God man.

In Deuteronomy 7:25, God tells His people to destroy idol images. Idol images are any images of God. Jesus is God. There is no denying that truth. God was manifested in the flesh.

zoidar said:

Looking at your work, I believe you should focus more on Christian motives. Not being disrespective, but it looks like an image that could have come from a New Ager, with the third eye and such things. I encourage you to go all in for Christian motives, especially since you have that longing. It may be a blessing for people.

Click to expand...

---------

Jason0047 said:

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25).

Click to expand...

No argument here.

Jason0047 said:

"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." (Revelation 1:18).

Click to expand...

No argument here either.

Jason0047 said:

You cannot separate the human body of Jesus from the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity. They are now forever one. Yes, the body is just a temple or a shell. But without that body, there would be no redemption for any of us. Without the second person of the Godhead or Trinity (i.e. the Eternal Living Word), the body would not being operating and it would be lying on the floor or ground. Surely, the picture you have of Jesus is one where He is awake with His eyes wide open. This means that the second person of the Godhead or Trinity is giving life to that body and operating it 100%.

Click to expand...

Agreed insofar as what I think you are trying to state. Jesus as the Logos (Word) has two natures, one Divine and one Human are in Union in the Logos. The Divine nature has certain attributes such omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so forth. From his human nature, the Word has such human attributes as spatial location, the ability to suffer, the ability to grow, feel hunger, and so on. Jesus in his earthly ministry had a spatial location and as such can be depicted. To deny the ability to depict Jesus is to deny an essential element of his human nature.

The ability to depict anyone or anything in an image or statue is not denied.
God simply says do not do it.(He calls it idolatry)
His Divine Right to say so.

Athanasius377 said:

No argument here.



No argument here either.



Agreed insofar as what I think you are trying to state. Jesus as the Logos (Word) has two natures, one Divine and one Human are in Union in the Logos. The Divine nature has certain attributes such omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so forth. From his human nature, the Word has such human attributes as spatial location, the ability to suffer, the ability to grow, feel hunger, and so on. Jesus in his earthly ministry had a spatial location and as such can be depicted. To deny the ability to depict Jesus is to deny an essential element of his human nature.

Click to expand...

There is no human nature or human soul aspect to Jesus. That is a myth. The Word (Logos) was made flesh. The Scriptures do not say that the Word possessed a human. The Word was not made into a living new soul. The Word (Logos) did not possess a pre-existing baby who was to be born. The body was just a shell. Jesus said so Himself. He called his body a temple and said He would raise it up three days later. The Omniscience of the Word (Logos) was merely suppressed during the Incarnation. Adam was also limited in knowledge before the Fall. Jesus had to be like a type of Adam in order to restore the Fall of Mankind. But that does not mean the Word (Logos) had a human soul that joined with the soul of the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity. If such were the case, then we would have a new God that came into existence with the Incarnation. Nor did Jesus possess a newly created human soul, either. Nowhere do we see Jesus talking or arguing with Himself (i.e. His human mind arguing with His divine mind as God). In fact, if Jesus had a created soul on some level, then we could not worship Him. For the 1st Commandment is to worship God alone. The body was just a temple, shell, or covering and not a human soul in any way.

For can you be tempted by something if you have no desire in the thing being tempted? In other words, for me to be tempted, I have to have a desire for that thing I am being tempted by. Wrong desire is lust. Jesus says if you lust after a woman, you have committed adultery already in your heart with her. So lust is bad.

In fact, we know that Jesus could never have lusted (or had wrong desire). For the Scriptures say,

1 John 2:16
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

Genesis 3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be DESIRED [lust] to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

For every man when he is TEMPTED, is drawn away by his own LUST. James 1:14
"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

Jesus was not tempted because Jesus did not have LUST. He was the Holy Son of God and sinless.

But what about when Scripture says that Christ is tempted?

Well, let me illustrate an example for you.

Let's say I was walking along the park and a shady looking character opens up his trench coat and says he has some hot watches that he just recently acquired that he would like to sell me. Okay, now it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these watches were probably stolen, so I would just tell him,

"No thank you."

Now, in retrospect, I could say that this shady character was tempting me. Yet in no way was I interested at all. So one can say a person was tempted by another without them having no interest in the part of the temptation given.

Hebrews 4:15 - "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted likeas we are, yet without sin."

Christ was tempted LIKE as we are. For the word "like" is used to compare something to another (or in making a parallel to something similar). The greek word "κατά" is linked to he Greek word "ταὐτά" in Luke 6:23, which is also transliterated as the word "like".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G2596&t=KJV
Click on full entry for the reference of Luke 6:23 (i.e. Luk. vi 23.)

So we have to ask the question, if he was tempted as we are, then why did He not sin? Was it because He was a good and perfect person? Was it because He was created as a demi god or an angel? Was it because He had a certain portion of the divinity of God? No, most certainly not. He did not sin because He was God Almighty 100%. He did not sin because He could not be tempted. Yes, he was tempted like we are in the sense that He was in our place. But that was it; For the parallel stops there. For the Scriptures do not say that Christ was tempted EXACTLY like we are. The Bible simply uses the word "like" which can be used to make a comparison of something.

In other words, lets say you ran into that same shady character trying to sell you one of his hot watches that he had try to sell to me and you refused him (with the same line of thinking that he was a crook). Now, later after you told me what happened, I could then say, "Oh yes. I believe I was tempted by the same guy."

Does that mean either of us were tempted? No. Of course not.

Christ was in our place. He was tempted as we were but was without sin because He was God. For we have a God who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities unlike a high priest back in the Old Testament. He knows how we feel!

For what did Jesus say about adultery? He said, that even if you look upon a woman in lust you have already committed adultery in your heart. Sooooo..... that means that any bad thoughts by Jesus in wanting to think about sinning would have been the same thing as actually sinning.

So is human flesh enough to overcome the Son of God? Ha! I don't think so! God is so much more stronger, powerful, and good than men think He is. For Jesus did not sin because He was God Almighty in the flesh.

In fact, Jesus still has a physical body today that intercedes on our behalf; And He still will never sin ever because He is God. Men are incapable of being perfect. Only God can be perfect. For Jesus said,

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but God." (Matthew 19:17).

Hebrews 7:26 says,
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;"

James 1:13 says,
" for God cannot be tempted with evil,"

Jesus is God. So this means God cannot be tempted.

Jason0047 said:

Nowhere did I compare you to Judas. I merely used Judas as a part of my illustration to make a point about what I believe is a wrong belief. Nowhere am I trying to make it personal or about you.

The problem I see is that Jesus never told us to love objects or things on this Earth. We never once seen Him or His disciples revere objects in the way that you say. In fact, the teachings of Jesus run contrary to giving affection to inanimate objects. Jesus says do not put your treasure in Heaven. God says we are not to even be concerned with our daily needs and that we are to seek first the Kingdom of God. Jesus told his disciples to forsake all that they had and to follow Him and they did just that. In Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus says we are not swear by anything and he points to inanimate objects (like the temple) and says that they are nothing. Jesus says put your treasure in Heaven and not here upon this Earth. If you are kissing something down here on this Earth, you are putting your treasure here upon this Earth. But moth and dust will corrupt the things of this world that you kiss. They will fade away and be no more (Except God's Word that is forever settled in Heaven that you cannot kiss). We are to invite the poor stranger in our home for a meal and we will then have great treasure in heaven.

Following the teachings of Jesus is antithetical to materialism. Following the teachings of Jesus is about a denial of self and in loving others and not objects.

Click to expand...

How far do you take this anti-materialism I wonder? Even God dwelt in objects and made them holy, the arc of the Covenant for instance (people were killed for touching it) or even the bones of Elisha caused men to be raised from the dead. Even the shadow of an Apostle healed people.

I'll grant we don't have examples of objects being kissed in Sacred scripture, but neither do we have the complete abstention from objects you seem to envision. If I were to follow where your logic leads us, do we even need a book of the bible, it is a physical object so who cares? Do we need buildings to gather in? Do we need to wear modest clothes when gathered, on and on? What about the Eucharist, it is physical? Is everything we do merely Spiritual with no bodily component?

If we are guilty of materialism by your standard, then I would say you are guilty of an excessive spiritualism. The Orthodox are not materialist but we are not anti-material either since we understand that God created both the physical and the spiritual. Our baptisms are done by water and the Spirit and not only by one. Christ has two natures, humanity and divinity. His humanity is subordinate to the divinity but it is not unimportant. This is why we venerate physical objects, be it the bible or the cross. It's not just the objects but what they represent, the saving news of Christ.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How far do you take this anti-materialism I wonder? Even God dwelt in objects and made them holy, the arc of the Covenant for instance (people were killed for touching it) or even the bones of Elisha caused men to be raised from the dead. Even the shadow of an Apostle healed people.

I'll grant we don't have examples of objects being kissed in Sacred scripture, but neither do we have the complete abstention from objects you seem to envision. If I were to follow where your logic leads us, do we even need a book of the bible, it is a physical object so who cares? Do we need buildings to gather in? Do we need to wear modest clothes when gathered, on and on? What about the Eucharist, it is physical? Is everything we do merely Spiritual with no bodily component?

If we are guilty of materialism by your standard, then I would say you are guilty of an excessive spiritualism. The Orthodox are not materialist but we are not anti-material either since we understand that God created both the physical and the spiritual. Our baptisms are done by water and the Spirit and not only by one. Christ has two natures, humanity and divinity. His humanity is subordinate to the divinity but it is not unimportant. This is why we venerate physical objects, be it the bible or the cross. It's not just the objects but what they represent, the saving news of Christ.

Click to expand...

When I say materialism I am not talking about the need for the Bible, food, shelter, a bed (to sleep in), shoes, clothing, blankets to keep us warm, etc. These are the basic needs of course. But God never intended any of these things to be more than they were. Yes, God made the ground holy and told Moses to take off his shoes because He was standing on holy ground. But again, we do not see one instance in all of Scripture where God asked men to kiss an object or to show affection towards it. God told Moses to take off His shoes because God was literally encompassing the whole area (including the ground). God is spirit and He can move through objects and or fill them. But that does not mean we are to kiss the objects. That defeats the purpose. That would be like kissing the door of a girl you had a crush on. It would be more accurate to kiss the girl and not the door. The object of your affection should be God and not the things God fills or encompasses. God does not live in temples made by hands. This should tell us that while God can dwell in temples or objects or things, God seeks to live in our hearts or lives. We are the temples that God lives in. Should we kiss our own bodies because God lives in us? Surely not. We should not glorify the temple or any other object above God. Yes, we should revere God's Word, but not at the expense of worshiping the person of God.

For if a woman received a love letter from her fiancé, she would not kiss the letter and take it out on dinner dates and talk to the letter as if it was her fiancé. She would save her kisses and affections and conversation and dinner time for the real deal. If she tried to french kiss a love letter from her love, people would probably call the funny farm. So yeah. I don't see how kissing a book or any inanimate object makes any kind of sense. God does not dwell inside these things. Even if He did, our affection should be for God and not for objects. Do you not see where I am coming from?

Jason0047 said:

No. Leviticus 26:1 clarifies the command in Exodus 20:4-5, when it says,

"Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."

Okay.

The part in red is saying:

#1. You shall not make any idols or graven images (Which is obviously talking about any images of a deity or God). Nothing is mentioned about bowing down to them.

The part in purple and blue is saying:

#2. Neither (which starts a NEW sentence or idea) set up any image of stone to bow down to it.

The part in red is saying not to even have idol images. The part in purple and blue is saying not to have images so as to bow yourself down to them. These are two unique concepts or ideas going on here. God does not want us to do one or the other. So just having images of God (or a false deity) is forbidden.

Here is another in the New Testament that hints at how God is not like unto a graven image or idol (that men make):

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." (Acts of the Apostles 17:29).

Deuteronomy 7 says,

"The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God." (Deuteronomy 7:25).

So according to Deuteronomy 7:25, you are not even supposed to have idol images. God tells us to destroy idols. Yet, you are saying it is okay to have them as long as you don't bow down to them. That to me is just silly.

Click to expand...

So you would condemn artists and sculptors? What about photographs of churches and religious objects? Do you have any artwork or photographs in your home? Maybe you should destroy them and burn your family photo albums, also, delete all the images off your computer and mobile phone.

zoidar said:

I think you didn't respond to a lot of the stuff I said ... anyhow I think you see a problem where there isn't any problem. You can't read v.16 distinct from v.19. Then it would be like you say yourself, a command that simply says, we can't make an image of anything.

Of course humans walk on land too. We are not to make ANY image to worship, not of any creature, any animal, of course not a picture of a man or a woman, or an image of Jesus himself TO WORSHIP. We are not to worship the sun, not the moon, not any holywood hero, not computer games, not horseback riding, not weight lifting, not swimming. I think both Deu and Exo are pretty clear if we don't read them from a preconceived idea. The passages say nothing about making an image of God, not in bad sense and neither in a good sense. The passages are simply not about that at all. They are about the same thing, We are not to worship anyone or anything but God.

But there is a huge difference between praying to an image, and looking at an image of Jesus when you pray to him. Even if you pray with closed eyes to Jesus, you may have an image (more or less visual) in you head of Jesus. But it's of course not the image in your head you are praying to, but you "direct" your prayer to Jesus through the image in your head.

What the Israelites did, was make an distortion of God, the golden calf. They gave this calf characteristics of another "god", saying this is how God is, that this is the true God. Then they worshipped the graven image of the golden calf, giving it special powers. What they did was leave the true God, to worship another god, a made up god. It was never about making a true image of God, neither was it about worshipping the true God. They chose to worship another god, because they weren't happy with the true God.

Click to expand...

I am going to emphasize what you just said to me.


The same is true for the golden calf as it is for a white European Jesus.

A person conjuring up a popular image of Jesus (in their head) is taken from a false idol image of Jesus that is not true. Jesus is not white or European looking (like us). He is a traditional Jew (Which means He is middle Eastern in appearance, darker in skin tone with different facial features). Jesus says to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). One is not worshiping God in truth if they are worshiping Him with an image of God that is a lie. The golden calf image is a lie just as much as the white version of Jesus is a lie. There is no difference. But you simply don't want to see it because you have gotten comfortable with such said image of Jesus. But if I made a picture of Jesus to look like a centaur (with his lower half being like a horse and his upper part of his body being human), it would be a lie, right? Jesus is not half animal and half man anymore than Jesus is a white man. Both are lies. So why promote a lie? It is not right. People can potentially worship that false image of Jesus and think that is what He really looks like.

You said:

I agree that we are not to pray to saints or anyone else but God. But having a picture or statue of Mary, what would be more wrong with that, than having a picture of your grandpa on the wall?

Click to expand...

Because there are no groups that worship my grand father in such a way. Nobody has turned my grandparents (who are now deceased) into statues or idols to bow down to. I would probably put away any pictures of my grandparents if I discovered a group of people making a statue of my grandpa and they were worshiping him. Why? Because God tells us to destroy idols within His Word. In other words, my picture can be a stumbling block for this group of people who are bowing down to a statue of my grandpa. But seeing nobody is really bowing down to my grandpa, I am free to display a picture of him if I desired.

Actually someone might see it, and start worshipping the image of my grandpa, it may sound strange but such a thing happend to an acquaintance. It was never the image that was the problem, it was the choice of worshipping it.

Click to expand...

Then the person who knows this other person idolizes their grandfather (in whom they worshiped as a statue or as a picture) should put away all pictures of him in their house so that this other person is not tempted to bow down in worship of him.

Why do you think King Hezekiah destroyed the brass serpent?
Because it was being treated as a god.
People today are making statues and images of a false image of Jesus and they are saying....

"This is God!"

Yet, God commanded the Israelites to destroy their idols (See Deuteronomy 7:25). Again, if it was just about how they could keep these idols as long as they did not worship them, then God would have said for them to do that. But God knew they would be tempted to say that such things were gods (When they are not). God wanted these idols destroyed. They are no different than the idol of a white Jesus today. So how exactly are you destroying statues or idols today in your own life? I know I do not have any false idol images of Jesus on display anymore in my home. I put away these idols.

I like religious art. It just bugs me when I see people bowing to the art. That’s why the 7th Ecunimical Council is such a challenge for me :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea


I don’t think that there is anything wrong about the art in of itself though.

zoidar said:

I had an experience from just looking at pictures of the crucified Christ a couple of years ago. At that time I didn't really feel I believed, it was all in my head. But when I looked at those pictures, I felt a pinch in my heart, and then suddenly I could feel it, that Christ died for me. It went from head to heart from just looking at images. So for me, pictures of Christ have just been a very positive experience.

I remember this happend during a time I was fasting.

Click to expand...

I think you could have done it eventually without the false idol image of Jesus.
I am sure somebody could have said the same thing if there was a Centaur version of Jesus. But that would not make such a statue any less of an idol (if people bowed down and worshiped such an image or looked to it as if that was how he really looked). We walk by faith and not by sight. For faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Remember that. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Our walk is an unseen one and not a visual one. So your spiritual epiphany or breakthrough was not based on faith but by what your eyes could see. Your eyes were seeing something that was not true. Jesus is not white or European anymore than He is a Centaur.

Oscarr said:

So you would condemn artists and sculptors? What about photographs of churches and religious objects? Do you have any artwork or photographs in your home? Maybe you should destroy them and burn your family photo albums, also, delete all the images off your computer and mobile phone.

Click to expand...

*Sigh* Again, we are not talking about artists or artwork in general here or photos of people in general. We are talking about artwork, statues, or photos that are regarded by a religious group who believes that such a thing (usually a person or an animal) as a visualization of their God, whereby they use this image to aid in their contact of such deity. But even if they did not contact such a deity and they had an image of a false God like statues of Dagon or Horus the sun god in their home, that would still be pretty disturbing to even own such imagery (if one is a Christian).

But if artists are creating artwork that is in line with objects that men consider as gods or deities, then... "yes".... the Bible condemns them and not me (See Exodus 20:4-5). Just owning the idols is enough to have them destroyed. Otherwise God would never have told His people to destroy their idols (See Deuteronomy 7:25). What circumstance can you think of in your life or in the lives of other fellow believers where they could destroy idols like the Israelites did?

Jason0047 said:

There is no human nature or human soul aspect to Jesus. That is a myth. The Word (Logos) was made flesh. The Scriptures do not say that the Word possessed a human. The Word was not made into a living new soul. The Word (Logos) did not possess a pre-existing baby who was to be born. The body was just a shell. Jesus said so Himself. He called his body a temple and said He would raise it up three days later. The Omniscience of the Word (Logos) was merely suppressed during the Incarnation. Adam was also limited in knowledge before the Fall. Jesus had to be like a type of Adam in order to restore the Fall of Mankind. But that does not mean the Word (Logos) had a human soul that joined with the soul of the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity. If such were the case, then we would have a new God that came into existence with the Incarnation. Nor did Jesus possess a newly created human soul, either. Nowhere do we see Jesus talking or arguing with Himself (i.e. His human mind arguing with His divine mind as God). In fact, if Jesus had a created soul on some level, then we could not worship Him. For the 1st Commandment is to worship God alone. The body was just a temple, shell, or covering and not a human soul in any way.

Click to expand...

That is a summary of a deficient Christology. The Jesus you describe isn't the Jesus described in Scripture. Historically it is similar to the heresy of Monophysitism.

The Bible teaches Jesus had a human nature. I quoted from Torrey's New Topical Textbook because it is still one of the best.



The Human Nature of Christ

Was necessary to His mediatorial office:
1 Tim 2:5. Heb 2:17. Gal 4:4, 5. 1 Cor 15:21. Rom 6:15, 19.
IS PROVED BY HIS
Conception in the Virgin’s womb. Mat 1:18. Luke 1:31.
Birth. Matt 1:16, 25. Matt 2:2. Luke 2:7, 11.
Partaking of flesh and blood. Jno. 1:14. Heb. 2:14.
Having a human soul. Matt 26:38. Luke 23:46. Acts 2:31.
Circumcision. Luke 2:21.
Increase in wisdom and stature. Luke 2:52.
Weeping. Luke 19:41. Jno. 11:35.
Hungering. Matt 4:2. Mat. 21:18.
Thirsting. Jno. 4:7. Jno. 19:28.
Sleeping. Matt 8:24. Mark 4:38.
Being subject to weariness. Jno. 4:6.
Being a man of sorrows. Isa 53:3, 4. Luke 22:44. Jno. 11:33. Jno. 12:27.
Being buffeted. Mat. 26:67. Luke 22:64.
Enduring indignities. Luke 23:11.
Being scourged. Mat. 27:26. Jno. 19:1.
Being nailed to the cross. Psa. 22:16, with Luke 23:33.
Death. Jno. 19:30.
Side being pierced. Jno. 19:34.
Burial. Mat. 27:59, 60. Mar. 15:46.
Resurrection. Acts 3:15. 2 Tim. 2:8.
Was like our own in all things except sin. Acts 3:22. Phi. 2:7, 8. Heb. 2:17.
Was without sin. Heb. 7:26, 28. 1 Jno. 3:5. 1 Pet. 2:22. Heb. 4:15. Jno. 18:38. Jno. 8:46.
Was submitted to the evidence of the senses. Luke 24:39. Jno. 20:27. 1 Jno. 1:1, 2.
WAS OF THE SEED OF
The woman. Gen. 3:15. Isa. 7:4. Jer. 31:22. Luke 1:31. Gal. 4:4.
Abraham. Gen. 22:18, with Gal. 3:16. Heb. 2:16.
David. 2 Sam. 7:12, 16. Psa. 89:35, 36. Jer. 23:5. Mat. 22:42. Mar. 10:47. Acts 2:30. Acts 13:23. Rom. 1:3.
Genealogy of. Mat. 1:1, &c. Luke 3:23, &c.
Attested by Himself. Mat. 8:20. Mat. 16:13.
Confession of, a test of belonging to God. Jno. 4:2.
Acknowledged by men. Mar. 6:3. Jno. 7:27. Jno. 19:5. Acts 2:22.
Denied by Antichrist. 1 Jno. 4:3. 2 Jno. 7.


Torrey, R. A. (1897). The New Topical Text Book: A Scripture Text Book for the Use of Ministers, Teachers, and All Christian Workers (New, revised and enlarged edition, pp. 124–125). Chicago; New York; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell.

The Chalcedonian definition affirms this 451 AD

(Prologue)
[The Council] opposes those who attempt to divide the mystery of the incarnation into two ‘sons’. It excludes from the sacred assembly those who dare to declare subject to suffering the divinity of the only-begotten. It withstands those who imagine a mixture or confusion of Christ’s two natures. It rejects those who fancy that the form of servant assumed by him among us is of a heavenly nature and foreign to ours in essence.2 It condemns those who invent the myth of two natures of the Lord before the union and of one nature after the union.

(Definition)
Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man composed of rational soul and body, the same one in being with the Father as to the divinity and one in being with us as to the humanity, like unto us in all things but sin.4 The same was begotten from the Father before the ages as to the divinity and in the latter days for us and our salvation was born as to his humanity from Mary the Virgin Mother of God. We confess that one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, must be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion or change, without division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one Person and one hypostasis. He is not split or divided into two persons, but he is one and the same only-begotten, God in the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as formerly the Prophets and later Jesus Christ himself have taught us about him and as has been handed down to us by the Creed of the Fathers. As these points have been determined by us with all possible precision and care, the holy ecumenical Council has ordained that no one may propose, put into writing, devise, hold or teach to others any other faith than this.


Evans, G. R., & Wright, J. R. (1991). The Anglican tradition: a handbook of sources (pp. 67–68). London: SPCK.

And also the Athanasian Creed ca 500 AD?


Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.
Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally.
And the catholic faith is this,
that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Holy Spirit is another.
But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit:
the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated;
the Father infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite;
the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal,
just as there are not three Uncreated or three Infinites, but one Uncreated and one Infinite.
In the same way, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy Spirit almighty;
and yet there are not three Almighties but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God;
and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord;
and yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.
Just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord,
so also are we prohibited by the catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.
The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is neither made nor created, but begotten of the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.
Thus, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another;
but the whole three persons are coeternal with each other and coequal so that in all things, as has been stated above, the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshiped.
Therefore, whoever desires to be saved must think thus about the Trinity.
But it is also necessary for everlasting salvation that one faithfully believe the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, it is the right faith that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is at the same time both God and man.
He is God, begotten from the substance of the Father before all ages; and He is man, born from the substance of His mother in this age:
perfect God and perfect man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh;
p 18 equal to the Father with respect to His divinity, less than the Father with respect to His humanity.
Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ:
one, however, not by the conversion of the divinity into flesh but by the assumption of the humanity into God;
one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ,
who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again on the third day from the dead,
ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming all people will rise again with their bodies and give an account concerning their own deeds.
And those who have done good will enter into eternal life, and those who have done evil into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.


McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (pp. 17–18). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

And the Augsburg Confession 1530:

1 Our churches teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God [John 1:14], assumed the human nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 2 So there are two natures—the divine and the human—inseparably joined in one person. There is one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried. 3 He did this to reconcile the Father to us and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of mankind [John 1:29].

McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (p. 32). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.


Or the 39 Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church:

2. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made Very Man


The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt but also for all actual sins of men.


Bray, G. (2009). The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (p. 24). London: The Latimer Trust.

1689 London Baptist Confession Chapter 8:2 also states:

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. ( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

zoidar said:

I think not. The only way to draw people to Jesus is showing Jesus. God bless you!

Click to expand...

I will admit. I am an artist (comic book artist) and I am very visual when it comes to things. In fact, God used a comic book tract called "This Was Your Life" to help me accept Jesus as my Savior by prayer. But it was not the image of Jesus that drew me to Him. It was the fear of being cast into the Lake of Fire for my sins. Granted, I do not believe the Lake of Fire is an endless torture chamber (but it is a place of eventual destruction of the wicked), but at the time, I did not want to be punished by the Lord. So I repented (asked God's forgiveness of my sins). The image in my mind that convinced me was the angel casting a person into the Lake of Fire. That is all I needed to repent. Yes, it was not until way later that I discovered that Jesus was not white and European looking. But the point here is that I kept seeking the truth about the Lord my God in whom I accepted. For me: Once the truth was revealed to me that Jesus is not white, I could not go back to believing a lie.

I am not saying people worship images of Jesus or that it is a direct sin, but I've always felt uncomfortable with it, even when I was a kid and people around me didn't understand where I was coming from. I just felt a conviction that it wasn't okay to do. Jesus was a man but I can't watch an actor play Him in movies or plays either, feels like it's too close to blasphemy. Same for an artist's version of what Jesus 'looks like' - I agree more with some of the Orthodox view on iconography when it comes to this subject.