Pictures of Jesus?

[CalledOutOne]

Here's a good discussion for you fellow Reformed folks.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."~Exodus 20:4 [NASB]

So what do you think? Are pictures of Jesus okay? What about pictures of God the Father (who cannot be seen)? Most of the time we see pictures of Jesus as a Caucasian with long hair and a beard and God the Father as an older man with white/gray hair on a throne.

Is this acceptable to God?

 

[JM]

I personally don't like them. The tee with "Jesus is my homeboy" is offensive to me.

 

[Thaeoles]

Say, imagine if you had a friend that had never seen you before said he had painted a picture of you and wanted you to come see it, and you go to see it and it looks nothing like you. Not only that, but since you had come, he sees you for the first time. Now, if that is not an awkward situation, I know not what is.

Images trying to picture the Father are, I think, irreverent, if not blasphemous.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Okay, does this play into movies?
What about the Passion (which is too Catholic for me)?
Is that wrong for making an image of Christ?

I like the points listed so far. Good discussion.

 

[Thaeoles]

Okay, does this play into movies?
What about the Passion (which is too Catholic for me)?
Is that wrong for making an image of Christ?

I like the points listed so far. Good discussion.

I can understand some leeway in film, being that it would be rather difficult to portray a character without someone playing the part. I like how Ben-Hur had Jesus' face never shown, though I don't think that is necessary for every film about Jesus or wrong to do so.

I haven't seen the Passion in a several years, nor do I have any ambition to see it again.

 

[CalledOutOne]

The Passion is definitely contrary to Isaiah 53:10. It displays this entirely Catholic tradition that it hurt God the Father to crush His Son... But what do the Scriptures say? "But Yahweh was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in His hand."

 

[Faith.Man]

I personally don't like them. The tee with "Jesus is my homeboy" is offensive to me.

I totally agree. I'm uncomfortable to disgusted with some of the portrayals of Jesus in film, and do not like paintings of Jesus, even by Christians. The sole exception to this would be the Shroud of Turin. I've read enough on the Shroud to believe it's genuine. But my faith doesn't rest on its genuineness.

 

[JM]

At the very least images showed not be used in worship, even if a person argues the image is not being worshiped, I don't see how these images enhance our worship.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Worship through image is Catholic. That sums it up as bad enough for me.
*Throws it out the window*

 

[CalledOutOne]

So my youth pastor wants me to teach Sunday School this Sunday (an Arminian SB Church) and he hands me a book with this on it.

Why do I even bother?...

 

[Anoetos]

It's probably useful to consider the purpose of the commandment; it was about idolatry more than anything else. I think it's problematic and not a little pharisaical to reduce it to a blank proscription without considering why it was proscribed.

That said, disrespectful representations of Christ and God are deeply offensive, and I agree with JM about the "Jesus is my Homeboy" tees.

"Jesus-junk" generally represents a cheapening of what should be precious, a reduction of what is, really, very dangerous and terrible (in the oldest, best sense) to something cute and accessible; it makes Jesus into a talisman. This is, I think closer to a violation of the commandment than a stained glass window or the cover of a serious theological work.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on it, for what they are worth but I am probably considered inadequately reformed by many around these parts.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I think it's problematic and not a little pharisaical to reduce it to a blank proscription without considering why it was proscribed.

Don't try to understand why God gave commands. Solomon did the same thing.

That said, disrespectful representations of Christ and God are deeply offensive, and I agree with JM about the "Jesus is my Homeboy" tees.

Absolutely

"Jesus-junk" generally represents a cheapening of what should be precious, a reduction of what is, really, very dangerous and terrible (in the oldest, best sense) to something cute and accessible; it makes Jesus into a talisman. This is, I think closer to a violation of the commandment than a stained glass window or the cover of a serious theological work.

I would say that it is probably wrong to have any image of any Person of the Trinity.
To do so is just mockery. We should know better than that. Although I agree that the "Jesus-junk" is worse than the stained glass windows in the Presbyterian church down the street.

 

[edie19]

I think they're wrong as they are based on man's imagination - I'm content with waiting to see Christ face to face.

I tend to agree with the quote in my signature anyway - we have Scripture, we don't need pictures

 

[alton3]

At the very least images showed not be used in worship, even if a person argues the image is not being worshiped, I don't see how these images enhance our worship.

I agree with this, for the most part. If images absolutely must be used in worship (i.e., to adorn churches; stained glass, etc.), they would ideally be limited to depicting Scriptural themes. The trouble with imagery is that it is culturally relative and thus can be divisive rather than unifying and focusing the minds of the congregation on worship and the Scriptures.

 

[bricklayer]

Idolatry does not necessarily include a totem type of an idol.
Depending on the ideology the idol can be anything from something as ubiquitous and tangible as money to something as metaphysical as fame.

A variety of images helps to keep the imagery weighted toward the historical fact that God the Son took on human flesh and lived among us and not toward a claim of actual appearance accuracy.

 

[Elvisman]

Here's a good discussion for you fellow Reformed folks.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."~Exodus 20:4 [NASB]

So what do you think? Are pictures of Jesus okay? What about pictures of God the Father (who cannot be seen)? Most of the time we see pictures of Jesus as a Caucasian with long hair and a beard and God the Father as an older man with white/gray hair on a throne.

Is this acceptable to God?

Ummm . . . what about your school pictures? Wedding pictures?
What about pictures in your wallet of your kids?
What about your Driver's License?
What about the pictures in your home of relatives?
What about pictures of your dog or cat or other pet?

Let's face it - the Commandment is against the worship of these images - not the making of them. Otherwise, just about everybody in the 21st century would be guilty of breaking this Commandment.

That's why the Catholic Church combines your 1st and 2nd Commandments because they are talking about the SAME thing . . .

 

[CalledOutOne]

Ummm . . . what about your school pictures? Wedding pictures?
What about pictures in your wallet of your kids?
What about your Driver's License?
What about the pictures in your home of relatives?
What about pictures of your dog or cat or other pet?

Let's face it - the Commandment is against the worship of these images - not the making of them. Otherwise, just about everybody in the 21st century would be guilty of breaking this Commandment.

That's why the Catholic Church combines your 1st and 2nd Commandments because they are talking about the SAME thing . . .

Pictures of the invisible God are blasphemous, that is true. However, other things are okay as long as you don't worship them.
Sorry, but Da Vinci (the homosexual Catholic) was not under divine inspiration when painting those pictures... contrary to what the Roman Catholic church at the time.
We don't know what He looks like. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Elvisman]

Pictures of the invisible God are blasphemous, that is true. However, other things are okay as long as you don't worship them.
Sorry, but Da Vinci (the homosexual Catholic) was not under divine inspiration when painting those pictures... contrary to what the Roman Catholic church at the time.
We don't know what He looks like. Let's leave it at that.

Sorry, but the Church has never said that Da vinci was under divine inspiration - at ANY time.

Secondly, you're avoiding the questions.
Exodus 20:4 CLEARLY states:
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."~

If creating an image of ANY creature is forbidden - how do you reconcile the instances I brought up in my last post including pictures of your kids, relatives, wedding or driver's license?

If these are "Okay", as you claim - then, why do Protestants split the first commandment into 2 commendments?

 

[CalledOutOne]

Sorry, but the Church has never said that Da vinci was under divine inspiration - at ANY time.

Secondly, you're avoiding the questions.
Exodus 20:4 CLEARLY states:
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."~

If creating an image of ANY creature is forbidden - how do you reconcile the instances I brought up in my last post including pictures of your kids, relatives, wedding or driver's license?

If these are "Okay", as you claim - then, why do Protestants split the first commandment into 2 commendments?

They are OKAY because you are ACCURATELY displaying them. You don't know what the invisible God looks like. Therefore, do not make a painting of them.

And I've been studying art for two years. I know a lot about the old paintings. The Catholic church taught that whether you like it or not.

 

[Elvisman]

They are OKAY because you are ACCURATELY displaying them. You don't know what the invisible God looks like. Therefore, do not make a painting of them.

And I've been studying art for two years. I know a lot about the old paintings. The Catholic church taught that whether you like it or not.

I, too was an Art History Student in college. Can you show me a Church document that states what you are claiming - that DaVinci was working under divine inspiration?

As for other images NOT of God being okay - that's NOT what your Protestant 2nd Commandment says. Taken in a wooden, literal sense - it forbids images of ANY creature. How do you reconcile that with the examples I presented regarding photos of loved ones and Driver's License pictures??

I submit that the creation of images - even of GOD are not forbidden. The WORSHIP of them as idols is what is forbidden . . .