Images of the Father. WHY?

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.
 

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
It is traditionally held to be a violation of the theology that informs Christian iconographic principles to depict God the Father. To the extent that you find it anyway (I have never seen such a thing in my own Church, but have seen one example among the Ethiopians, which is weird since the Ethiopian Church is the daughter of the Coptic Church), it is an innovation that should not be allowed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
It is traditionally held to be a violation of the theology that informs Christian iconographic principles to depict God the Father. To the extent that you find it anyway (I have never seen such a thing in my own Church, but have seen one example among the Ethiopians, which is weird since the Ethiopian Church is the daughter of the Coptic Church), it is an innovation that should not be allowed.
thank you.

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-icon-god-image6551432
I have seen the following Eastern Orthodox icon of the father, but I believe it to be the exception to the rule. Most of the incidents that come to mind are in the western church. I attended a church back when I lived in Pasadena that had tremendous mural which depicted different levels of heaven: you saw all the saints, and above them were the angels, and at the very top was God. It used to drive me nuts.
 
Upvote 0

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟169,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Because the Holy Spirit came in the forms of a dove and tongues of fire, we can depict Him. Because of the Incarnation, we can depict Jesus. Also because of the Incarnation, we can depict the Father. Why? Because Jesus is the Father's son by nature. Also by nature, Jesus is "in the image" of the Father.

That being said, if it's "blasphemous" to depict the Father in a human way in art, then surely it's equally as blasphemous to describe Him in human ways? But Scripture references the strong right hand of God- it even suggests that He has wings. We know better than to believe that Scripture is describing God as He appears (it's using human characteristics to help describe His nature), so why can't we hold artwork to that same standard?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.

Very thought provoking and I love things that MAKE me think. Gives the old brain some exercise.

I think there is a scripture that says "God is not a man that he can lie." One can take that literally or metaphorically, but it does seem to say that we are too quick to buttonhole God to suit our own earthly concepts of him.

I ask myself if I can have a relationship with something that is not physical and then I hear the words "God is Spirit and those who worship him have to worship him in Spirit and truth." Nothing bodily about that.

Taken literally we worship a Spirit. So yes, it could mean that depictions of God in bodily form are fanciful.

Having said that I know that both the Spirit and Jesus can appear in bodily form as attested to by thousands of Muslims who have seen Jesus in visions and dreams and I have read books where angels have appeared in bodily form through the power of the Spirit.

Two boys were taken up into heaven and both attested to having met Jesus. When asked what he was like the first boy drew a picture of him.

A year later another boy who had not met the first boy had the same experience. He was asked the same question and he drew a picture of Jesus. It was identical to the picture drawn by the first boy.

I have a feeling that whoever it is, they appear in a form that is appropriate to the situation and I say that because he is God and can do anything.

Having said that, it does not necessarily mean God is a man and has a male physical form.
 
Upvote 0

Job3315

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2018
885
729
United States
✟89,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.
I’d read Genesis 18 if I were you. The Lord appeared to Abraham in human form. I’ve always known God walks the earth constantly and have interactions with us but we don’t know it. I do not like it when people make an image of an idol saying that is God, but I can't limit God when He appears in my dream with a physical body.

Its good that you respect God, but just because you haven't had the experience Abraham had where he interacted with God in the physical realm doesn't mean that God doesn't use a body or own one.
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
GodInvitingChristDetail.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father_in_Western_art
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
@Episaw

re: "Having said that, it does not necessarily mean God is a man and has a male physical form."

The Scripture you posted already shows

Yahweh is NOT a man / NOT human/ NOT a person ......
yet
Yahshua, Yahweh's Salvation (Jesus) , God incarnate, took upon Himself life as a man born on earth, a human MALE.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.

I wonder then, whether angels have arms and legs and eyes, hair, fingers, mouths, ears...etc.

...Because if they do, and we look like them, and they look like Him, then it could be that human form really is His image. Just a thought.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.

The 2nd Council of Nicea ruled that images of Christ were acceptable because our Lord Jesus was human and thus had form. However images of the Father are not acceptable, same with the Holy Spirit.

Indirect ways of representing the Father and the Holy Spirit may be fine (such as using the dove to represent the Spirit), but direct representations are in violation to the standards of iconography established by the Church in response to the Iconoclasts.

Thus depicting the Father as an old man is a no-no. That doesn't stop it from happening, however.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SashaMaria
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.


I agree with your premise, but Jesus said when you see me, you have seen the Father.

Not that they look the same....my point being that Jesus was not offended by the personification of the Father as "The Father" and being male, so we should not be either. I don't like the image of a "man" as our "father God", but Jesus encouraged it, so it must be Ok.
 
Upvote 0

Chinchilla

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2018
2,839
1,045
29
Warsaw
✟30,919.00
Country
Poland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We are prohibited from making idols, including idols of God. But for some reason we persist in paint pictures of him. Why?

The Father is spirit. He does not need feet for walking, or fingers to grasp objects with, or a rib cage to hold in his vital organs. When we speak of the "arm of God," we are clearly speaking figuratively. So why do people continue to depict him as a man? Why?

Some say, well, it's because it says we are made in his image. If I have two eyes, then God must have two eyes. WRONG!!!! The image of God that we bear is related to character, not physical form.

When I think of God the Father, I don't see a human form, not the classic old man in a long white beard, or any other version. I don't "see" anything at all. It is not necessary to have an image, even for human convenience.

I personally find the great artwork that depicts the Father as a human being as deeply disturbing. The Father was never incarnate. He is NOT a man. Perhaps I'll be the only person in the forum to feel this way, but it just seems so wrong. It seems to skirt by the idolatry clause on a technicality. And it is blasphemous in that it attributes God characteristics that He does not have. That's my feelings.

So God does not have feathers ? :puff:

Psalm 91:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.



Jews had coins for the temple / trading with Yah sitting on throne before Christ era .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehud_coinage
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I wonder then, whether angels have arms and legs and eyes, hair, fingers, mouths, ears...etc.

...Because if they do, and we look like them, and they look like Him, then it could be that human form really is His image. Just a thought.

Angels have been seen, and have arms, and legs, and eyes, hair, fingers, mouths, ears, .... etc ... and some are in heaven, and some are not.
They do not look like Yahweh at all, no.
Scripture is not at all vague about this - just no need to say much about this.
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
@Episaw

re: "Having said that, it does not necessarily mean God is a man and has a male physical form."

The Scripture you posted already shows

Yahweh is NOT a man / NOT human/ NOT a person ......
yet
Yahshua, Yahweh's Salvation (Jesus) , God incarnate, took upon Himself life as a man born on earth, a human MALE.

And your conclusion is......
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
And your conclusion is......
No conclusion necessary here. Just believe TORAH (YAHWEH'S WORD).

Man does not live by bread alone, but by a steady stream of words from Yahweh's mouth. or "by every word from the mouth of Yahweh" ....

Yahweh speaks and reveals TRUTH / JESUS, and is not a man/person that He could lie -
we can believe what He Says without changing it by any kind of interpretation. (and we are forbidden from interpreting His Word personally/ privately -- HE REVEALS the UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE/ HIS WORD/ to little children as it is written is HIS GOOD PLEASURE).

So when HE SAYS , period, no idolatry, that's it. No twisting adding or trying to interpret it differently to try to escape His judgment on all who have an idol or who practice idolatry plain, and simple. Even a child can understand!

As His Word Says Directly:

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
The 2nd Council of Nicea ruled that images of Christ were acceptable because our Lord Jesus was human and thus had form. However images of the Father are not acceptable, same with the Holy Spirit.

Indirect ways of representing the Father and the Holy Spirit may be fine (such as using the dove to represent the Spirit), but direct representations are in violation to the standards of iconography established by the Church in response to the Iconoclasts.

Thus depicting the Father as an old man is a no-no. That doesn't stop it from happening, however.

-CryptoLutheran
Wow. That's a really important fact. Is there any link to the document of the council that's states this?
 
Upvote 0