Nativity Scenes?

Do you allow or have nativity scenes in your home?

  • No, they are idolatrous.

    Votes: 26 59.1%
  • No, for other reasons.

    Votes: 5 11.4%
  • Yes, you're crazy.

    Votes: 13 29.5%

  • Total voters
    44
Status
Not open for further replies.

BobVigneault

Bawberator
In fact, fire is a great manifestation of God's presence for the simple fact that it has no form or shape. You can't draw fire, it is amorphous.

The burning bush was in no way to be understood as a representation of the Godhead. It represented none of his divine attributes. The burning bush, like the back side of God's glory that Moses also witnessed, was a manifestation of God's presence and nothing more. The pillars of fire and smoke were not God, they were merely a manifestation of his presence.
But a drawing of Moses' vision from the cleft of the rock would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? One who didn't know better could read your response above and conclude that you'd allow it -- which I can't imagine anyone here would.

As I'm considering it right now, I lean against the permissibility of drawing the burning bush. Surely the fire represents something about God's divine attributes?
 

Whitefield

Puritan Board Junior
Too much heat in this thread for a discussion, plus the rules have been invoked, so, I'm outta this thread.
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
Our OPC had a Christmas play, with the choir, kids dressed up as shepherds and angels. Little Mary and Joseph first went out, then kneeled down next to an empty crib. The next day I coincidentally had come to the 2nd Commandment in catechism with the youngest, and asked why the crib was empty. They said it was explained at church during the practice for the play, and obviously the crib had to be empty :)
I am not trying to stir anything up but an empty crib where everyone knows is supposed to contain a baby Jesus seems...sacrilegious. This is similar to things I see angry atheists do to try and exclude God from everything. They do it to make a point. Is excluding Christ from Christmas a point the church wants to make?
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
***I am not trying to start a fight***:)
Joshua, technically you constantly posting pictures of yourself is a violation of God's law. Man is made in the image of God, so an image of man is technically an image of God. This is how the Jews, and Muslims, see it. :) Deu 4:16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:15:58 EST-----

Is excluding Christ from Christmas a point the church wants to make?
uhm, yes...At least if you are a Puritan :D
WOW!!! Are you Jewish?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
***I am not trying to start a fight***:)
Joshua, technically you constantly posting pictures of yourself is a violation of God's law. Man is made in the image of God, so an image of man is technically an image of God. This is how the Jews, and Muslims, see it. :)
uhm, no...this is how the Amish see it. Jews and Muslims have no problems with photos. And neither do the Amish if you pay them enough...

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:17:54 EST-----

***I am not trying to start a fight***:)
Joshua, technically you constantly posting pictures of yourself is a violation of God's law. Man is made in the image of God, so an image of man is technically an image of God. This is how the Jews, and Muslims, see it. :)

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:15:58 EST-----

Is excluding Christ from Christmas a point the church wants to make?
uhm, yes...At least if you are a Puritan :D
WOW!!! Are you Jewish?
Hubby is part Jewish...and people have mistaken me for such, but I'm Scot/Cherokee, thanks :) It's more that I practice what I confess.
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
***I am not trying to start a fight***:)
Joshua, technically you constantly posting pictures of yourself is a violation of God's law. Man is made in the image of God, so an image of man is technically an image of God. This is how the Jews, and Muslims, see it. :)
uhm, no...this is how the Amish see it. Jews and Muslims have no problems with photos. And neither do the Amish if you pay them enough...

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:17:54 EST-----

***I am not trying to start a fight***:)
Joshua, technically you constantly posting pictures of yourself is a violation of God's law. Man is made in the image of God, so an image of man is technically an image of God. This is how the Jews, and Muslims, see it. :)

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:15:58 EST-----

uhm, yes...At least if you are a Puritan :D
WOW!!! Are you Jewish?
Hubby is part Jewish...and people have mistaken me for such. It's more that I practice what I confess.
I am talking about Jews from the time of Christ, the first century.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:20:39 EST-----

***I am not trying to start a fight***:)
Joshua, technically you constantly posting pictures of yourself is a violation of God's law. Man is made in the image of God, so an image of man is technically an image of God. This is how the Jews, and Muslims, see it. :) Deu 4:16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:15:58 EST-----

uhm, yes...At least if you are a Puritan :D
WOW!!! Are you Jewish?
Then, technically, someone who holds that is accusing God of breaking the 2nd Commandment, which is absurd.
I am trying to point out how absurd it is by being absurd. The Tabernacle, the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant all had images of animals and angels on them. This was technically a violation of God's own law.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
No, but we are not speaking about the Jews from the time of Christ and there were no Muslims then. And yes, I have a close Jewish friend that happens to be rather Orthodox. You are mixing things up, by saying that the Jews and Muslims would be against posting a photo of oneself.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:22:47 EST-----

I am trying to point out how absurd it is by being absurd. The Tabernacle, the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant all had images of animals and angels on them. This was technically a violation of God's own law.
Really? Where are they worshipping such? It's more that you are taking things out of context or at the very least, misunderstanding them.
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
Genesis 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before£ me. 4“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands£ of those who love me and keep my commandments." (ESV)

Exodus 25:18-20,"And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel."

Exodus 26:31 "And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it."

He told them to make this but does not tell them to worship these images.

Revelation 1:13-16, "Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."

This is describing what Jesus looks like. How can one read this and not imagine it in their heads?

NO HARSH TONE IMPLIED. Friendly debate. :)
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
Really? Where are they worshipping such? It's more that you are taking things out of context or at the very least, misunderstanding them.
They are not worshipping them that is my point.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 02:36:57 EST-----

I'm not really sure how folks can "feel" heat from a written medium. Where's this "heat" of which some speak? Is it words like absurd and ridiculous? Just curious. Guess I'll recuse myself from this thread, since my (not mine at all, BTW) arguments are too simplistic, etc. That's okay. I'll stick with the Confessions, the Catechisms, and the Scriptures. This is the Puritan Board, after all.
There is not body language to show that you are not mad. There is also not tone or gesture.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Folks, see the old threads in my previous post; the questions or arguments against Larger Catechism 109 are not new, and there is an abundance of material arguing the confessional point of view. This one's done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top