Image of Christ: Different Argument

Status
Not open for further replies.

christian_soldier33

Inactive User
The following seems to be a different argument than most that I have confronted on the topic. My friend and I (both formerly opposed to the idea; and I still am) were debating the issue (him playing the devil's advocate) when he actually presented a very sound idea.
When we read the Bible we must picture Christ in our mind's, knowing that He is God, but still picturing Him, as a man, doing the things that He did. So what is different from doing this in our mind's and putting it in a children's book so that children can picture what Christ did. This view would still hold strictly to picturing Christ ONLY as the Bible portrays Him and anything outside of this would be idolatry.

This is normally the argument that I present against ANY image of Christ.
The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter IV
"Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints
Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16)."

BUT who reads the Bible without "picturing" what it looked like. I don't think that anyone can really get into the Gospel w/o doing this. So what is the difference? Anyone got any ideas?

Knight4Christ8 (borrowing my brother's id)
 
There is a difference between the reading, preaching of, and admonishment through the written Word and having an artist draw pictures for our children to look at in Christian Bible story books.

The reading, preaching, teaching and admonition of the Word is Biblically mandated. These are Biblically appointed means of grace. Obeying biblical mandate is in no way a violation of the commandments.

Having extra-biblical, artistic renderings of "what it must have been like for Jesus to have..." is not biblically mandated. It is not an ordained means of grace (as is the proclamation of the written Word), hence such non-mandated means of proclaiming the works of Christ may be in violation to the commandments.

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Dan....]
 
I saw some kids with coloring books at my church. It depicted Jesus as a non descript form. Much like a stick figure you would see on a sign like a crosswalk or children playing sign.

The earliest known "picture"of Jesus was found in a catacomb second century. A couple hundred years of speculation can distort the truth enough so even that early portrayal will not be accurate.
 
What about the possible effects of (docetism?). This is to say, if we don't put a picture of Jesus in a picture book, and we teach the story with all the disciples on the mount listening to a sermon, but no Jesus...I am not arguing for or against, I was just wandering how thoses of you who are against images (I mean in the context of this argument) deal with the issue of children's books? In addition, does anyone watch the movie "Ben Hur"? That movie depicted an image of the Christ.
 
time for a "what if" question!!!:D

What if you are a missionary/Bible translator to a tribe that has developed a pictoral written language. what do you do when it comes time to translate "Jesus Christ" into a picture?
 
Is this pictoral written language anything like Chinese characters or more basic?

Either way, you would probably not have to draw a picture of a person. You would probably be able to borrow existing pictoral word-characters with a combined usage that describes His office.

For example, combine their characters for prophet, preist and king, to make one word: prophet-preist-king... or possibly combining their character for god and their character for saviour, to make one word: god-saviour, then refer to those combined characters as Yeshua.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Dan....]
 
Read this for a humorous interlude

Actors Whip Easter Bunny at Church Show
Thu Apr 8,11:08 AM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!



GLASSPORT, Pa. - First, the Passion of the Christ. Now, the torment of the Easter Bunny?



It may not have been as gruesome as Mel Gibson's movie, but many parents and children got upset when a church trying to teach about Jesus' crucifixion performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs.


People who attended Saturday's show at Glassport's memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, "There is no Easter bunny," and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified.


Melissa Salzmann, who brought her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped," Salzmann said.


Patty Bickerton, the youth minister at Glassport Assembly of God, said the performance wasn't meant to be offensive. Bickerton portrayed the Easter rabbit and said she tried to act with a tone of irreverence.


"The program was for all ages, not just the kids. We wanted to convey that Easter is not just about the Easter bunny, it is about Jesus Christ," Bickerton said.


Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, a community about 10 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.


"It was very disturbing," Norelli-Burke said. "I could not believe what I saw. It wasn't anything I was expecting."
 
[quote:7a0fcc493d][i:7a0fcc493d]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:7a0fcc493d]
time for a "what if" question!!!:D

What if you are a missionary/Bible translator to a tribe that has developed a pictoral written language. what do you do when it comes time to translate "Jesus Christ" into a picture? [/quote:7a0fcc493d]

That's easy, make up an idea for the Trinity with #1 being the Father, #2 being Christ, and #3 being the Spirit!

Heh, according to most modern churches you'd think that first was the worst, second was the best, third was the one with the treasure (gifts) chest.

Anyone remember that little playground rhyme?
 
Okay, surely we've all heard about the bunny-flogging. Can we sing songs to these children to teach them about Christ?
I have a home day-care. If you read to babies, they learn to read. If you sing with babies, they learn the words. 10-month-olds pick up a rhythm and dance. I learned my multiplication tables in (gasp!) Catholic school because the nuns played a record of them every day. The Psalms teach pretty much everything, and they're meant to be sung, to the music of THIS generation. I'm very much in favor of hip-hop Psalms. I wish I could find some for my kiddoes.
Bee
 
[quote:a82afc8ee5][i:a82afc8ee5]Originally posted by christian_soldier33[/i:a82afc8ee5]

When we read the Bible we must picture Christ in our mind's, knowing that He is God, but still picturing Him, as a man, doing the things that He did.
<snip>
BUT who reads the Bible without "picturing" what it looked like. I don't think that anyone can really get into the Gospel w/o doing this. So what is the difference? Anyone got any ideas?

Knight4Christ8 (borrowing my brother's id) [/quote:a82afc8ee5]

Well, now, [i:a82afc8ee5]must[/i:a82afc8ee5] we picture Christ is our minds? I don't think so. And the writers of the Westminster Larger Catechism seem to agree:

[quote:a82afc8ee5]
WLC #109
Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,(1) counseling,(2) commanding,(3) using,(4) and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;(5) tolerating a false religion;(6) the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either [b:a82afc8ee5]inwardly in our mind[/b:a82afc8ee5], or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever;(7) all worshipping of it,(8) or God in it or by it;(9) the making of any representation of feigned deities,(10) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;(11) all superstitious devices,(12) corrupting the worship of God,(13) adding to it, or taking from it,(14) whether invented and taken up of ourselves,(15) or received by tradition from others,(16) though under the title of antiquity,(17) custom,(18) devotion,(19) good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever;(20) simony;(21) sacrilege;(22) all neglect,(23) contempt,(24) hindering,(25) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.(26)

1. Num. 15:39
2. Deut. 13:6-8
3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
4. I Kings 11:33; 12:33
5. Deut. 12:30-32
6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17
7. Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25
8. Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
9. Exod. 32:5
10. Exod. 32:8
11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11
12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14
14. Deut. 4:2
15. Psa. 106:39
16. Matt. 15:9
17. I Peter 1:18
18. Jer. 44:17
19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
21. Acts 8:18
22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
23. Exod. 4:24-26
24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
25. Matt. 23:13
26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16
[/quote:a82afc8ee5]
 
Here is another one for you. Some say we do not have to picture Christ in our minds. Some (many) autistic people think pictoraly and are unable to think of Christ, God the Father, or the Holy Spirit without a picture in their minds. do you say about that?
 
Let us not forget that we are depraved people.

The human mind is a factory of idols.

I don't believe that we, as fallen creatures, can even go for an hour without breaking the second commandment. Not only by picturing in our minds an image unworthy of Him do we break the commandment, but also by having thoughts that are unworthy of Him (everytime we sin we have thoughts about Him that are unworthy of Him, for by acting in sin we deny that He is a Holy God who hates sin, hence idolatry).

Just because we may "think" that we are unable to think on what Christ has done without making an image of Him is no excuse for making images. Our inability to obey the command does not give us any excuse to continue to break the command.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Dan....]
 
I don't know if anybody has mentioned this yet, but I don't think iconic art is idolatry in and of itself. Such as showing a shepherd etc. and just using that to depict an office or character of Jesus. The main reason for that is because in the picture it is not really trying to show Jesus, but is an icon.

However there is really no point for such things unless a picture of a random shepherd and his flock might help kids understand Jesus' work better. But it would have to be a mere historical reference and should not even be used as a depiction of him in any way; only to show an office etc. that mere men were able to fulfill in types.

All the images in the world of historical things is not idolatry as long as it is not representing Jesus and other members of the Trinity.

(I was just looking at some monastic iconic art and ALOT if not most of it is idolatry. But I am not necessarily referring to historic catholic works.)

Rembrandt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top