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.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've explained the rationale behind the use of poster.
You said:Your are free to see things your own way.
You said:Beyond this, we don't know what Jesus looked like, but we do know that he existed. We should be able to imagine his physical existence in some sense.
You said:With regard to your last post, the use of allegedly anti-Christian peace symbols by secular hippies or Nazis, doesn't relate to my avatar.
Forgive me, but this is a bit of a stretch. The first connection is not really there ...
I visited a site (incidentally one that argued against Christ being the Messiah at all, claiming He Himself was a false sun god) that used this image to make the point.
View attachment 215378
The "sun" behind Christ is what is commonly called a halo - which is meant to show the glory of God - somewhat like the light when Christ was transfigured, but often shown just on the head. There are different artistic elements (and some artists take liberties they should not) ... but the bars form a Cross behind His head. If you look closely, there are small lines making up outlines of the cross bars and these represent the orders of Holy Angels. The letters are essentially "I am" (some of these are later additions).
The hand sign shown in the image is to form the letters IC XC which are the first and last letters of "Jesus Christ" in Greek - a typical way of making shorthand identification of someone. The same letters appear alongside Christ in the icon, further identifying who is pictured.
View attachment 215379
The reason a blessing is given with the same hand sign is that all blessings come from God. The hand sign is meant to acknowledge Christ.
The charge is that the halo and hand sign are the same as that of the sun god Tammuz except that ... well, they are not.
View attachment 215381
(This image is from the same site that attempts to "prove" that Christ is Tammuz ... even though they admit it has changed a little. Basically the commonality is that they both are using a hand sign.)
So it's an ever further stretch to say that depicting a white Jesus (even though He wasn't) further reinforces pagan sun god imagery?
Thanks. You have your own perspective on what constitutes truth in this case. Most pictures of Christ depict him as a "hippie." Since we don't know that he had short hair, this might be right. Maybe he had short hair. We don't know.Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
Do you disagree that pictures are not another form of communication for words?
What your avatar is sayng = Jesus is white and Jesus is a hippie.
It's not about me seeing things my own way. It's about the truth of things. You either will see the truth on this matter or you will simply refuse to see it because you do not want to see it.
No. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. You cannot rely upon your own self. Plus, we know Jesus was not white. To say so otherwise is ridiculous.
Yes it does because it says Jesus is a hippie and the hippie movement is associated with the peace symbol. In fact, there are images of Jesus using the two finger hand sign that symbolizes world peace amongst hippies. So you cannot escape the problem with your avatar. It is not only offensive, it is wrong. But you are free to believe however you like.
It could be a coincidence that Tammuz had used a two finger peace sign, but we see this amongst the secular world even amongst hippies who did not believe in Jesus. There is a spirit behind the world's way of thinking and it is very old. You are free to see the connection that is there or you can simply ignore it.
What does the writing in the book say?
Thanks for the history lesson on your avatar. I had to do a search on google to find a larger version I could read. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.Thank for the extensive reply @Jason0047.
With regard to points #1 to #5, the poster is intended to depict an easily identifiable, artistic imagination of what Jesus looked like. He may not have looked white, and may not have looked black. Since we don't know exactly, there should be no issue with depicting him as white, black, or somewhere in between.
Point #6 is a fair point. It is possible to make a likeness of God into an idol. The intent of this poster is show that although we don't know what Christ looked like, we know that he existed as God and man in history. He lived a real life. And because of his life, death, and resurrection for us, our lives are forever changed.
With regard to the remaining points, the poster is from the Jesus People movement of the 1970s. It was intended to be proactive in order to counter the secular counter-culture which advocated drugs, sex, and revolutionary activism.
The Jesus People offered a Christian alternative on college campuses and elsewhere to this secular counter-culture. Christian coffee houses became a popular feature across the country based on this movement. For more information on the Jesus people and their history, see the book God's Forever Family. Below is my Amazon review of the book.
God's Forever Family is a well organized history of the Jesus People movement in America. Larry Eskridge provides a readable account from the movements' inception in San Francisco to its outgrowth nationwide. Nearly any city of any size would come to have a Jesus People inspired coffee house.
The movement began as a hippie-Christian counter to the secular counter-culture, from which many of the hippie-Christians were recent converts. As the movement grew and the secular counter-culture declined, the Jesus People turned inward and became a ministry to evangelical youth. Eskridge is especially good in showing the interaction (and friction in some cases) between the hippie-Christians and their "straight" counterparts within the evangelical church.
Eskridge also shows how the movement declined due to economic hardship in the mid-1970s, leadership struggles, and due to the participants in the movement getting older and moving into married life. Despite its decline, the movement would have long-term consequences on evangelical church life and secular culture in the form of contemporary worship and the social conservatism of the pro-life movement.
The energy and enthusiasm of the Jesus People, especially their zeal for in-person evangelism, is something the church needs today. This book shows us why.
I was wondering what the words on the book in the image said. I just wondered, thats all.I'm guessing by the book you mean the Holy Scriptures?
Indeed, we should ask what the Scriptures say. What do the words and teachings of those who gave us the Holy Scriptures say that it means? Since it seems that well-meaning Christians 20 centuries later can read the book and reach opposite conclusions when applying their own reasoning to interpret it.
Let's just let Scripture speak for itself. We all know the commandment, so let's have somebody who adheres to this "Westminster Catechism" explain why God placed two statues of Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Golden representations of angels on the ark???? The commandment is not to make them AND BOW TO THEM, serve them, worship them. A picture, statue, whatever... isn't the issue until one submits to them or expects something from them. Not that I am condoning the building of statues... just trying to be unbiased here.It has been pointed out to me that my avatar is a violation of the second commandment against idolatry and images, based on the Presbyterian Westminster Catechism (Questions 108-110). This seems to be a misapplication of the Westminster standards and a misinterpretation of the second commandment. Am I wrong? If so, how?
Then as an adherent to this belief (which you are welcome to, I am just curious) how do you reconcile the making of golden cherubim and the placing of them on the Ark? God isn't going to break His own commandments... so what do you do with that?Worship is mentioned but the scope is broader. The Westminster Standards forbid the making of an image period. This would include for educational purposes or for art.
Many do think that the Standards go beyond the intent of the second commandment. Many coming for ordination take exception to this section of the Standards.
Ah, please forgive me. I get used to looking at many things and forget that it was reading the words in the book that was often my first question too. Forgive me. I completely forgot that was part of the icon when I was trying to understand what you meant.I was wondering what the words on the book in the image said. I just wondered, thats all.
Then as an adherent to this belief (which you are welcome to, I am just curious) how do you reconcile the making of golden cherubim and the placing of them on the Ark? God isn't going to break His own commandments... so what do you do with that?
Thank you, @Tree of Life. Would you describe yourself as a confessional Presbyterian?I'm not sure if I subscribe to this particular portion of the standards. But I believe the answer would be that the second commandment forbids the worshipping of any image and also the making of any image of God. Images of cherubim can be made but not worshipped. Images of God cannot be made period.
Thanks... I can see that. I actually (personally) prefer to not even watch movies like The Passion, for example, because (though done well in that case) I am still placing in my mind the imagery another imagines of the times and of the Lord Himself. And even though I know it isn't but a depiction, it is still there in my mind rather than whatever the Lord Himself would have placed there as I had read His Word. So... it's a fine line.I'm not sure if I subscribe to this particular portion of the standards. But I believe the answer would be that the second commandment forbids the worshipping of any image and also the making of any image of God. Images of cherubim can be made but not worshipped. Images of God cannot be made period.
Thanks... I can see that. I actually (personally) prefer to not even watch movies like The Passion, for example, because (though done well in that case) I am still placing in my mind the imagery another imagines of the times and of the Lord Himself. And even though I know it isn't but a depiction, it is still there in my mind rather than whatever the Lord Himself would have placed there as I had read His Word. So... it's a fine line.
I am not opposed to them, remember, I am one of the posters here who introduced the cherubim on the Ark as ordered by God Himself to be that which stands opposed to the interpretations of some who take the commandment as making no image, drawing no picture... taking no pictures, etc. In fact, for those who are sincere and continue down that path... I generally ask them if they have a mirror in their home because to use it would be to reflect an image of yourself.You make me curious about something? Well, you and others. And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm really curious how people's experiences go.
You may have partially answered but I won't draw that out so as not to be leading.
But I'm curious for everyone who is opposed to images on various levels. Not only you, but all.
Ah, so I will ask separately. You inspired the asking of the question, which is something I've wondered already.
Thanks. You have your own perspective on what constitutes truth in this case. Most pictures of Christ depict him as a "hippie." Since we don't know that he had short hair, this might be right. Maybe he had short hair. We don't know.
I am not opposed to them, remember, I am one of the posters here who introduced the cherubim on the Ark as ordered by God Himself to be that which stands opposed to the interpretations of some who take the commandment as making no image, drawing no picture... taking no pictures, etc. In fact, for those who are sincere and continue down that path... I generally ask them if they have a mirror in their home because to use it would be to reflect an image of yourself.
The point I would make that you are asking about is that I do think when it comes to drawing pictures of God, that this is an area better left alone. He is a Spirit, without flesh and bones... truly beyond our comprehension when it comes to His "being." To attempt to encapsulate Him in an image cannot do Him justice, in fact it can only make Him less than He is regardless of our intention when we make the image. Because of this, I think we should simply avoid trying to recreate God as we are only able to create Him from the perspective of fallen man... and we have a history where attempting to recreate God in imagery has ended poorly. For ME personally... I draw a fence around this one and only attempt to express Him in words... which itself is limited but we have to communicate.
I dont consider images as anything. Whether they pop in my mind or not, i dont consider them as anything.I'm curious - no debate or trying to convince anyone of anything, but genuinely curious ...
For those of you who oppose the idea of imagery:
Can you pray and meditate on the Scriptures and so on without your mind ever producing any image whatsoever of Christ?
I really don't mean that antagonistically.
If you can, then I guess that answers the question, though with the way God created us to be highly visual I almost doubt it. (By the way, we Orthodox are NOT to create images in our minds as we pray either, so I get that, and sometimes it's a struggle not to.)
But otoh, if you do imagine an image of Christ, what do you do with that according to your conscience?
Again, I'm really just curious.
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?