Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All of the above tells you that it is a sin to make an image of God. That's the point.
You can read the reasons here. 5 Reasons not to Use Images of Jesus - Reformed Arsenal
Any kind of image with a face that is supposed to represent God is a sin.Just curious... for those who believe an image of Jesus (God) is a sin... I assume this applies to such things as children's illustrated bibles?
This is also wrong. A person acting God in a movie is impudent. But that is the case only in Western culture. Jews and Muslims would not even think of such a blasphemous idea.How about a movie like The Passion of the Christ? Or a show like Chosen? Or even a church nativity play?
What are you asking me to do, copy and paste the content here? The link I posted gives the reasons you are asking for.You haven't given a biblical or theologically sound reason. You've pointed to two other religions, and a theological tradition which I don't agree with.
And if we are going to be sending links to articles that simply express the views of our respective theological traditions, here's an article by Pastor Jordan Cooper (Lutheran), on why Lutherans have images:
Lutherans And The Use Of Images
One of the things that initially scared me away from Lutheran churches was the crucifix placed in the front of the sanctuary behind the preacher. Doesn'twww.patheos.com
If what a Lutheran pastor has to say on the subject doesn't matter to you because you aren't Lutheran; then you can imagine then that I really don't care what the Reformed tradition has to say on the matter. And I don't care that members of another religion don't have images of Jesus. You may as well point out that Buddhists don't have icons of Jesus either--it's not relevant to the question of Christians and images of Jesus.
You're giving me your opinion, and then saying it's sinful because that's how you feel. Well, that doesn't mean much to me either. You are free, based on your feelings, to not have images. But you are not free to tell me and other Christians that we can't or that we shouldn't because it is sinful--because it isn't sinful, there is no violation against God's commandment. You simply dislike it, and you can't even provide a solid biblical or theological defense of your position.
-CryptoLutheran
What are you asking me to do, copy and paste the content here? The link I posted gives the reasons you are asking for.
Even if he did, he is now ascended and glorified; not necessarily as he was on earth.Unless he has appeared in a vision...
Actually, no, that isn't a clear statement: no statement is clear when it is taken out of context. Paul was speaking at that point to a group who had endeavored not just to have idols of their gods, they had actively sought through the world to make sure there weren't any gods they were overlooking (and as "insurance" they'd made an altar to "Unknown god", just in case). This statement is in Paul's introduction where he is setting up both a contrast with the truth and a commonality where they'd gotten a little bit correct (despite themselves). Indirectly he's echoing a common chastisement of Athenian philosophers, that while they made sure they weren't missing any gods they did nothing to indicate they actually honored any of them. So sure, if you're a philosopher-type who keeps idols around and tries to include every possible deity yet you don't truly take any of them seriously, Paul's statement is clear.You see it often and regularly. Christians who either have an image of Jesus hanging on their wall at home or have a picture of Jesus as their profile picture on social media. There are also Christians who bow down before an image of Jesus (or Mary).
My question is: Is that reprehensible to make an image of God?
Paul said in Acts 17:29: "Because we are descended from God, it is absurd to think that we can represent God in statues made of gold, silver or hewn stones. These are, after all, only creations of our art and our imaginations."
Isn't that a clear statement?
My other question is: Why do people always tend to make an image of God? We see this already in the early times of mankind and until today it is still common. How do you explain this phenomenon?
But He went first: He gave us an Image of Himself. The little images we make point us to the real Image, and indeed express our longing for Him.I don't claim that either. It is specifically about God/Jesus. I think it is wrong to make an image of God.
Calvin in this would be called out by the church Fathers for encouraging Docetism by deliberately obscuring the human nature and thus making a Jesus who is no Savior.@Brother-Mike
John Calvin agrees with me, for he says:
Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal Son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a Crucifix stands mopping & mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the son of God. (Sermon of 23 May, 1555).
The fact that God ordered Moses to put images in the Tabernacle, and that God blessed the Temple after Solomon had put in even more images all on his own, tells us that it isn't a commandment, it's a commentary on the First.In Reformed thought, it is considered idolatry, because it breeches the second commandment which forbids the making and usage of any depiction of God. If Jesus is God, then Jesus would follow under this commandment.
Not at all impressed with the one about Christological error because it overlooks the fact that God made an Image of Himself that looked like it was just a man.I suggest you and all others to read this article: 5 Reasons not to Use Images of Jesus - Reformed Arsenal
If that is true, then we should never, ever think about God, because whatever mental image we have of Him "doesn't even really represent God".True, but did they make images of him and put those images up at home or in the churches? No, certainly not.
Besides, this example is weak. The Jesus they saw was the real Jesus. The "Jesus" that is seen in the images today is not the real Jesus. It is a false representation of him. Every image of Jesus today is false.
I am not talking about a serpent or any other creature, I am talking about God. You can make images of animals, angels and other creatures, that is of course allowed in the Bible as long as you don't worship them. But a picture of God that doesn't even really represent God is a sin.
I recall being pointed to this concerning the matter of mentally-challenged folks who couldn't follow a sermon or even scripture verses. I was told to watch them in church, and it didn't take long to recognize that though they were terrible with verbal learning they understood the Gospel from the stained glass windows and the wall carvings.Iconography is the Scripture in pictures. Just as I reverence the cross, or the book containing the Gospels, I can also reverence Christ, Mary, the saints and various events of the their lives. At a deeper level, the rejection of icons also indicates the rejection of matter being honored because Christ Himself became matter for our sake. Furthermore, this can be taken that Christ did not become truly human and thus heresy.
St. John of Damascus wrote in the Defense of Images, circa 730: Internet History Sourcebooks Project
Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.
I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life' Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holv Spirit.
I don't think that applies, though. Moses was never commanded to make images of God in the Tabernacle, nor in Solomon's Temple. There may have been images, which the commandment was not prohibiting, but there were no images depicting the living God. Matter of fact, not even the mercy seat had a figure sitting between the two cherubim, although, that would have been pointless since no one could look at it. And, think about that: an object (ark of the covenant) that represented God's covenantal presence was condemnable to gaze upon, and thus this speaks volumes of the kind of disgust God has for images carved by man to depict Him.The fact that God ordered Moses to put images in the Tabernacle, and that God blessed the Temple after Solomon had put in even more images all on his own, tells us that it isn't a commandment, it's a commentary on the First.
There's an argument from the ancient church I'm not certain I'm impressed with, but I'll put it forth here: as God made an Image of Himself, we in turn copy Him b making images of the True Image. Another is that by having images of the Image, we can look on them while the true Image is for the moment gone from us,
I can't say my avatar of Jesus makes me responsible to be like him, why would that be? I guess I have it to inspire others to know Jesus and out of love for him.With regard to Christians using portrayals of Jesus for online avatars, I think it's pretty arrogant or a least astoundingly daring, because that choice brings with it the responsibility to be like Him in every single last way.
One point about images of the Spirit and the Father: the Spirit can be depicted as a dove since that was the guise told/shown us at the time of John the Baptist. Additionally, the Father and the Spirit can both be depicted on icons not showing but rather suggesting the Trinity, though not directly but indirectly as with icons of Abraham's encounter with "three men" at Mamre; in practice this is limited to just a very, very few icons. An OCA priest I knew who had studied icons extensively pointed out that one way to tell if an icon is suggesting the Trinity is if the faces are identical: since Jesus is the only material/visible image of the Godhead, His is the only face we can paint to indicate God. He also said that the positions of the figures suggesting the Trinity are supposed to indicate either a circle or a triangle or both.Paul also said that our Lord Jesus is "the visible image of the invisible God". The question of images became a huge issue around the 8th century AD. Muslim armies had, in the 7th century, conquered the Persian Empire and had conquered the Levant, Egypt, and spread throughout North Africa. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka the Byzantine Empire) had lost a lot of land to the Muslims. It came as a shock to the Christians living there, as for centuries the Roman Empire (East and West) had been predominately Christian. Also, at the time, many Christians were unsure of what to make of Islam, it wasn't viewed so much as a completely different religion at the time, but was seen as a heretical sect. Whereas in the West, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Germanic "barbarians", those same "barbarians" converted to Christianity.
So some in the Eastern Church wondered why, it seemed, God had "sided" with the Muslims against Christians (a very earthly and wrong way of looking at things, obviously, thinking that God is on the side of the victors in a conflict). And so some, such as Emperor Leo III of the Byzantine Empire saw that the big difference (from his perspective) was that Muslims forbade all images, while Christians had images. Leo concluded that perhaps God was punishing them for having images, and so began a campaign of Iconoclasm (literally "image-breaking"), banning images in churches.
Theologians and clergy were appalled by what Leo was doing, because for them this wasn't merely an act of the State against the Church (which it was), nor was it merely an absence of having images; rather they saw it for what it was: An attack on the fundamental and essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
The problem with Iconoclasm was that the core doctrine of our Christian faith is the believe that God became man. The invisible God, the Eternal Logos, God the Son Himself, became human. Assumed our humanity. Jesus is both God and human, without separation. Thus the theologians of the time saw this as an assault against the very doctrine of the Incarnation, it was an attack against Jesus Himself and everything we believe about Jesus as Christians.
Eventually this resulted in the convening of a Church-wide council, only the seventh to ever happen in the history of Christianity. And the subject of this council was the matter of Iconoclasm and the need to defend the Faith.
The Council gathered at Nicea, even as the very first Church-wide council had met at Nicea centuries earlier in order to defend the full and complete Deity of Christ against the Arians.
The Council thus, after much meeting and examining the Scriptures and taking all that had come before into account, ruled this way: Images of Christ are not in violation against the making of graven images for the injunction against the making of graven images is because God is invisible. And thus, images of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were to be rejected, for God cannot be depicted; images of the Incarnate Son were absolutely valid. For God has taken upon Himself visible human flesh, and to depict that visible flesh does not wrongly depict God, just the opposite, it rightly reminds us of the Incarnation. So images of Christ should not only not be rejected, they should be celebrated: God became man, this is our faith, all praise and glory to God. In the same way, images of creatures should not be prohibited, so there should be no prohibition against images of the saints, for such images act to serve as reminders of God's saving work and grace throughout history. That the lives and memories of the saints can be to our benefit, even as we read in Hebrews that we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses--the saints surround us and cheer us on as we run the race of faith here in the world.
So rules were put forward that governed what images meant and what their purpose was, it also ruled that there were lawful and unlawful images. As noted, it is unlawful to depict God the Father or the Holy Spirit, for God in His Essence is not to be depicted for it cannot be. Which is why only images of Christ were considered lawful.
So, no, images of Christ do not violate the commandment against graven images and idols; and it does not go against what Paul said there in the Acts. We do not have images of the Invisible and Divine Essence which cannot be depicted, we have images of Christ, the visible Icon of the invisible God. For these images are not the object of our worship, but are fingers which point to the object of our worship: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hence Christians have always had and used images. We can see this going back and looking to ancient times, such as the ancient catacombs. It is only with the rise of Iconoclasm many centuries later that the presence of images became a matter of debate--and the reasons behind that debate had nothing to do with theology and Scripture, but because an emperor wanted to impose his will on the Church because he wrongly believed that God favors whoever wins in war. It's no different than had Leo tried to replace the Bible with the Qur'an in the churches.
We don't see Iconoclasm again until modern times. Some radical Protestants (and when I say radical, I really mean radical, the sorts who also burned and looted churches and monasteries, who assaulted priests and monks, and who engaged in widespread unmitigated violence) resurrected Iconoclasm. Martin Luther and other leading members of the Reformation condemned these radicals. Iconoclasm, again, shows up now and then among some Protestant groups today. But it is a theologically anemic doctrine, it is a false piety.
That is not to say that anyone HAS to have images. But to condemn images is problematic in Christianity, because the very heart and core of the Christian faith is that the Invisible has become Visible in Christ. God's grace and power is not "invisible" but visibly manifest. God works through the visible and external means of Word and Sacrament to give us faith. The Scriptures are visible, external, we read them as ink on a page, we hear them as words spoken as audible voice. It is with physical and visible water that we received our baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We receive visible, physical, tangible bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Iconoclasm fundamentally denies the visible and external works and word of God--and that is spiritually dangerous. It leads us away from trusting in the Gospel, trusting in Christ, trusting in the word of God and toward trusting other things. When all the while Christ is right here in our midst, in His word, in His Sacraments, in the love and fellowship of His Church coming together in His name.
And an image of Christ reinforces this: Christ really is here with us. The Crucified and Risen Lord, He who is seated at the right hand of the Father is He who said, "I am with you always, even until the end of the age" as He is here, in Word and Sacrament. The visible and the invisible meet and come together, the infinite and the finite are together; God is here with us. And reminding ourselves of this, taking every opportunity to find ways to be reminded that God is with us is important. That we are reminded over and over again of His promises.
-CryptoLutheran
Rublev's TrinityOne point about images of the Spirit and the Father: the Spirit can be depicted as a dove since that was the guise told/shown us at the time of John the Baptist. Additionally, the Father and the Spirit can both be depicted on icons not showing but rather suggesting the Trinity, though not directly but indirectly as with icons of Abraham's encounter with "three men" at Mamre; in practice this is limited to just a very, very few icons. An OCA priest I knew who had studied icons extensively pointed out that one way to tell if an icon is suggesting the Trinity is if the faces are identical: since Jesus is the only material/visible image of the Godhead, His is the only face we can paint to indicate God. He also said that the positions of the figures suggesting the Trinity are supposed to indicate either a circle or a triangle or both.
Rublev's Trinity
View attachment 324251
One point about images of the Spirit and the Father: the Spirit can be depicted as a dove since that was the guise told/shown us at the time of John the Baptist. Additionally, the Father and the Spirit can both be depicted on icons not showing but rather suggesting the Trinity, though not directly but indirectly as with icons of Abraham's encounter with "three men" at Mamre; in practice this is limited to just a very, very few icons. An OCA priest I knew who had studied icons extensively pointed out that one way to tell if an icon is suggesting the Trinity is if the faces are identical: since Jesus is the only material/visible image of the Godhead, His is the only face we can paint to indicate God. He also said that the positions of the figures suggesting the Trinity are supposed to indicate either a circle or a triangle or both.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?