Are images of Jesus allowed?

[Gregory Thompson]

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?

We're not muslims, so restrictions regarding that aren't a thing.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

If I look at that with my eyes crossed there's definitely a circle defined by the bodies. I also see a cup framed by the two outside figures that becomes almost three-dimensional when viewed the same way. The oak in the background suggests that this is the encounter at Mamre; the wings (which I almost missed) do as well since the "three men" who visited Abraham at Mamre have traditionally been understood to have been angels.. The faces seem identical (I'd want a much larger image to be certain, but I'd bet that they are), which makes this a suggestion of the Trinity. The center figure would be Christ since he is inside the framed cup. I'm guessing the figure on the right would then suggest the Holy Spirit, since blue and green indicate life and He is the Lord and Giver of life. That would leave the figure on the left as the suggestion of the Father (though there must be something else I'm missing that tells this is the Father). I can't tell what's in the cup on the table, so no guess at any meaning.

The item in the right background looks to me like a tsunami wave; I suppose it must be a mountain?

Yup, you got them all. Both the middle (Christ) and right (HS) angels are facing the left one (Father), reminiscent of the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit is begotten of the Father (and not "The Father and the Son"). The house on the left is indicative of Abraham's house. The tree in the background is the Oak of Mamre, but also a reflection of the Tree of life. The mountain is one of spiritual ascent, as in Orthodox theology, we climb with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Roymond]

Yup, you got them all. Both the middle (Christ) and right (HS) angels are facing the left one (Father), reminiscent of the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit is begotten of the Father (and not "The Father and the Son"). The house on the left is indicative of Abraham's house. The tree in the background is the Oak of Mamre, but also a reflection of the Tree of life. The mountain is one of spiritual ascent, as in Orthodox theology, we climb with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Ouch! The Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds.

So what's in the cup on the table?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Ouch! The Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds.

So what's in the cup on the table

Yup, my mistake. Brain no workee on a Saturday at 6:35am And trying to answer this at 5:17am on a Monday is even worse

The bowl in the center contains the head of a calf from Gen 18

 

[Roymond]

Yup, my mistake. Brain no workee on a Saturday at 6:35am And trying to answer this at 5:17am on a Monday is even worse

Yeah, I remember posting on one forum almost compulsively until about 4 a.m. once; when I two days later re-read what I'd written I had to do a lot of re-writes.

The bowl in the center contains the head of a calf from Gen 18

The head? That's . . . weird.

 

[ozso]

It is self-evident that it is forbidden to paint God a face. Go to a Reformed church, a Syanagoge or a mosque, you will not find an image of God, because these people fear God. Only catholic-minded Christians see it differently.

It is a question of Godliness not to do it. Why do you desire to make images of God? Why do you want to do it so badly? You can make pictures of anything else, isn't that enough for you?

That's a purely subjective opinion. It's not based on any commandment from God. The commandment God gave in Exodus 20 is quite clearly laid out, that we are not to make idols of gods to replace him. Like when the Isealites made a golden calf god (probably a representation of Baal) to replace YHWH while Moses was away. It's alright that you don't like pictures of Jesus, but you can't claim God doesn't like pictures of Jesus, without quoting Him saying so. Unless you're claiming to be a prophet God is speaking through, you need scripture to back up what you're saying. Otherwise is just your (and John Calvin's) personal pet peeve.

 

[prodromos]

The head? That's . . . weird.

So it is recognisible as the fatted calf Abraham prepared for them. You might not recognise a lump of meat as a lump of meat in an icon. In a sense it is a visual example of synecdoche

 

[ozso]

"God has forbidden two things [ cf. Exodus 20:4-5]. First, the making of any picture of Him…. The other is, that no image may be worshipped…." - John Calvin.

"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.

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;" Exodus 20:4-5

It seems pretty clear that God isn't limiting this to images of Him, but rather is saying not to make images of anything that exists... to worship in place of Him.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Yeah, I remember posting on one forum almost compulsively until about 4 a.m. once; when I two days later re-read what I'd written I had to do a lot of re-writes.

The head? That's . . . weird.

 

[Roymond]

"God has forbidden two things [ cf. Exodus 20:4-5]. First, the making of any picture of Him…. The other is, that no image may be worshipped…." - John Calvin.

"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.

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;" Exodus 20:4-5

It seems pretty clear that God isn't limiting this to images of Him, but rather is saying not to make images of anything that exists... to worship in place of Him.

Context, for those wanting to argue:

God commanded images to be made for the Tabernacle, and those were carried over to the Temple. Then when Solomon had the Temple built, he added images that God hadn't commanded... and God blessed that Temple with His presence. The one that always blows me away is that Solomon had giant bulls in the temple!
Since God both commanded images and blessed ones He hadn't commanded, we know that the point was not any and all images, that in fact this is not a commandment but an addendum to the first commandment.

 

[GenemZ]

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?

When I lived in Western Massachusetts I attended a lecture at Williams College that was open to the public. The lecture as given by a museum curator speaking about Christianity in the arts.

At one point the curator said something concerning the images of Christ we get to see today.

He said it began at a point in time with new members coming into the church. He explained how earlier Jews by law for forbidden to make any graven images in the likeness of man. No accurate depictions of Jesus by Jews were ever made.

So, when we got the image of the long haired Jesus we have now? It was developed at a time when pagans were being converted and coming into the church. In their enthusiasm for their new found faith some of their artists wanted to depict Jesus in paintings and pictures.

What was their frame of reference for how Jesus should look? The curator said that they depicted Jesus according to their own concepts of what constituted a holy man from their pagan temples they had come out of. Which unfortunately, were often times in appearance like we now get pictures of Jesus.

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that
if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?"

1 Cor 11:14​

grace and peace .......



.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

One of the earliest depictions of Jesus, dated 235AD

 

[GenemZ]

One of the earliest depictions of Jesus, dated 235AD
View attachment 324484

That is not what Jesus looked like.
It looks like a typical Roman citizen.

Jesus had a perfect male body. No defect. A perfect human specimen.

Jesus had become known among the people for being physically strong and able.

When he cleared the Temple? To turn over those heavy wooden tables in the Temple? Tables which were holding hundreds of pounds of coins? Besides the heavy wooden table being heavy in itself! To flip over the tables of the money changers? That took exceptional physical power! He was not some long haired religious mystic type.

One can assume it was why they sent a regiment of guards to arrest Jesus, knowing the physical power that he had manifested in the past.

That long haired wimpy image we have now have been stuck with? We are being lied to!

That image was modeled by new converts after the likeness of their pagan temple priests (who were known for their homosexual participation in the pagan rituals of the ancient world. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1062813

Christianity spread throughout the world. And, with it? The shutting down of the pagan temples.

Jesus was physically strong! Yet..... gentle. For he is both the Lion and the Lamb of God!


grace and peace .........

 

[prodromos]

So, when we got the image of the long haired Jesus we have now? It was developed at a time when pagans were being converted and coming into the church. In their enthusiasm for their new found faith some of their artists wanted to depict Jesus in paintings and pictures.

The synagogue unearthed at Dura Europos was filled with images depicting scenes from the Old Testament. They did not have images of God because God had never been seen. Since the incarnation, God has been seen.

What was their frame of reference for how Jesus should look? The curator said that they depicted Jesus according to their own concepts of what constituted a holy man from their pagan temples they had come out of. Which unfortunately, were often times in appearance like we now get pictures of Jesus.

Where are some of these pagan images of "holy men" that it is claimed images of Jesus were based on? I can understand different ethnicities depicting Jesus with the same ethnic features, but the above claim sounds like pure conjecture.

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that
if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?"

1 Cor 11:14

The word translated as "long hair" literally means "hairdo". The Nazerenes who vowed never to cut their hair were not considered a disgrace. Samson was not considered a disgrace and John the Baptist was not considered a disgrace. It was considered a disgrace if they were styling their hair like a woman would do.

 

[prodromos]

When he cleared the Temple? To turn over those heavy wooden tables in the Temple? Tables which were holding hundreds of pounds of coins? Besides the heavy wooden table being heavy in itself! To flip over the tables of the money changers? That took exceptional physical power! He was not some long haired religious mystic type.

You have details on the construction of the tables which had been set up in the outer court?
You have documentation of what weight of coins would have been on those tables?
It sounds to me that you have created in your mind your own image of Jesus.

 

[GenemZ]

You have details on the construction of the tables which had been set up in the outer court?
You have documentation of what weight of coins would have been on those tables?
It sounds to me that you have created in your mind your own image of Jesus.

Is that the best you can try?

 

[prodromos]

Is that the best you can try?

So you offer no archaeological evidence, just your opinion that the tables must have been massive, heavy timber construction and there would have been hundreds of pounds in weight of coins on them, because 'reasons'.

 

[GenemZ]

So you offer no archaeological evidence, just your opinion that the tables must have been massive, heavy timber construction and there would have been hundreds of pounds in weight of coins on them, because 'reasons'.

They were mahjong tables?

The Jewish coins were about 94% silver. Ever lift bags of pennies? It had to be heavy because they were taking in what was Roman unacceptable coins and exchanging them for what was acceptable in the temple which were 94 % silver.

Keep in mind! After bleeding from being whipped 36 times by a trained Roman guard, Jesus was still able to pick up a 300-pound cross and carry it halfway up a hill before he collapsed.
What is the weight of the cross that Jesus carried?

 

[Roymond]

The word translated as "long hair" literally means "hairdo". The Nazerenes who vowed never to cut their hair were not considered a disgrace. Samson was not considered a disgrace and John the Baptist was not considered a disgrace. It was considered a disgrace if they were styling their hair like a woman would do.

Have you got a reference for that? In ancient Greek it comes from the verb κομάω, "I have long hair".

 

[Roymond]

Is that the best you can try?

You made a set of claims. You were challenged to provide sources. Your response here is strange; common sense would be to at least provide some information!