PDA

View Full Version : Does Your Church Hang Pictures Portraying Jesus



cchandrus
Feb 15th 2008, 01:45 PM
Your thoughts please.

My Church has

REV 15:4

for thou
only art holy:

Zorgblar
Feb 15th 2008, 02:56 PM
Your thoughts please.

My Church has

REV 15:4

for thou
only art holy:


Yes the chruch i attend has many pictures of jesus hanging around.

DeadToSelf
Feb 15th 2008, 03:15 PM
What about our thoughts? Like how would I put my thoughts?:D

But yeah my church does have 2 pictures I think? Or from what I have seen. One of Jesus while you walk into the side enterance of my church and another room used for BIBLE study has a picture of JESUS but I forget what He is doing in that picture.

Sold Out
Feb 15th 2008, 03:20 PM
Your thoughts please.

My Church has

REV 15:4

for thou
only art holy:


I've seen maybe one...in a children's sunday school room. That's all I can recall.

lost_little_one
Feb 15th 2008, 03:21 PM
i don't think my church has any hanging now that i stop and think. mostly crosses here and there.

grit
Feb 15th 2008, 05:17 PM
My church does not, and has declined gifts of artwork that depict Jesus. It's consistent with early Jewish Christian practice regarding such depictions as posing a danger of idolatry. It is an element of Reformation Protestant distinctiveness that differentiated it from Roman Catholicism and settled Eastern Orthodox practice, where iconography in the use of statues, crucifixes, and rich illustrations of the Bible text proved as much a danger and avenue for error as it was helpful to visualizations of the Gospel. Most evangelical Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, and later the Baptists, Methodists, etc...) did not initially support iconography, and for those now accepting their use, it has only been since the close of the 19th century that their usage has gained favour.

Many Protestants from this tradition have now qualified some usage, especially with technical media and communication advances providing such a plethora of diverse imagry like the Jesus film, the Pasion of the Christ, and full-color cartoons and illustrations in Children's literature and curriculum; but there is still a strong aversion toward having statues of Jesus or artwork attempting to realistically depict Him permanently affixed to places we gather to worship Him - especially since there is no realistic record provided of exactly how Jesus looks, and the Biblical proscriptions concerning the dangers of image use have historically proven to be quite valid and justly cautioned against.

Romulus
Feb 15th 2008, 06:11 PM
Your thoughts please.

My Church has

REV 15:4

for thou
only art holy:


My Church has icons portraying Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the apostles. We also have crucifixes in most of the rooms. We are a Charismatic Episcopal Church by the way. These are simply reminders of those who came before us. We do not pray to them. I personally like seeing them as they remind me of who I serve and who has served Him well. It also gives a quite reverance when you enter the sanctuary, especially since we have a cd player playing "chant" by the franciscan monks constantly. Praying and focusing on the Lord is so great there.

RJ Mac
Feb 16th 2008, 01:50 AM
Okay, who took the picture and where are the negatives of Christ? Hmmm no original pictures eh??
So what men are hanging on the walls is a 14th century artists imagination? What would Christ look like?

Long blond hair, blue eyes, tall good looking? Doesn't sound like Christ but Satan.
2Cor.11:14 - No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Isa.53:2 - He has no stately form or majesty, that we should look upon Him.
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

ICor.11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

Rev.9:2,3 He opened the bottomless pit...then out of the smoke came locusts
Rev.9:7,8 The appearance of the locusts... they had hair like the hair or women...

If you by scripture Jesus was not a handsome man to be attracted.
Jesus did not have long hair but it would have been cut short.
If you go by the looks of historical Jews of the day, he may have been shorter than what many portray Him to be, with olive skin and black hair.

So what people hang on the walls, is no image of our Lord. Don't these pictures violate the 2nd commandment, Thou shall have no images...?

RJ

Clifton
Feb 16th 2008, 02:27 AM
Okay, who took the picture and where are the negatives of Christ? Hmmm no original pictures eh??
So what men are hanging on the walls is a 14th century artists imagination? What would Christ look like?

Long blond hair, blue eyes, tall good looking? Doesn't sound like Christ but Satan.
2Cor.11:14 - No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Isa.53:2 - He has no stately form or majesty, that we should look upon Him.
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

ICor.11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

Rev.9:2,3 He opened the bottomless pit...then out of the smoke came locusts
Rev.9:7,8 The appearance of the locusts... they had hair like the hair or women...

If you by scripture Jesus was not a handsome man to be attracted.
Jesus did not have long hair but it would have been cut short.
If you go by the looks of historical Jews of the day, he may have been shorter than what many portray Him to be, with olive skin and black hair.

So what people hang on the walls, is no image of our Lord. Don't these pictures violate the 2nd commandment, Thou shall have no images...?

RJ


...except when he had a vow as a Nazarite,
Nu 6:1-6; Jud 13:6; Jud 16:17; 1Sa 1:11. (These are initiated by "Thus Saith The Lord" commands, which overrules Paul, but see Acts 18:8, which shows the Paul apparently took the vow himself and it was time for a haircut;)). This was known as the Nazarite Vow (Consecrated to God). Also, occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom, (2Sa 14:26).;)

The Nazarite, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (#Nu 6:5).

And of course, there was Samson's, whose hair was his strength - until he got it cut off.

RJ Mac
Feb 16th 2008, 04:13 AM
Clifton I'll agree that Paul was keeping a vow in Ac.18:18; he cut his hair but I don't see how one could say Paul took a Nazirite vow. As for Jesus, yes He was a Nazarene because He lived in Nazareth. Mt.2:23; 4:13; 21:11; 26:71; Jn.1:45,46; Jesus the Nazarene Ac.2:22; 3:6; 22:8;

You can't prove He was on a Nazirite vow. It definitely would have been mentioned. The reason for Him being painted with long hair is I believe is because that was the style in the 14th and 15th century when people started painting the Messiah.

RJ

Mograce2U
Feb 16th 2008, 04:40 AM
Numbers 6 speaks of the requirements for one who takes the Nazarite vow - and one of its requirements is that the one under the vow can come near to no dead body. Which makes it pretty hard to raise the dead...

Naphal
Feb 16th 2008, 05:39 AM
Long blond hair, blue eyes, tall good looking? Doesn't sound like Christ but Satan.

And that's what Satan looks like huh?

tgallison
Feb 16th 2008, 01:14 PM
Your thoughts please.

My Church has

REV 15:4

for thou only art holy:


Deuteronomy 4:16 "Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female."

Deuteronomy 4:23 "Take keed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee."

John 4:24 "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Those pictures hung in worship centers are worshiped. Those pictures are not God, they are the imaginations of men.

RJ Mac
Feb 16th 2008, 05:43 PM
Naphal - sin dresses itself to look warm and inviting. The one explanation for Satan's fall was he was so taken with himself. It's like child molesters, they always seem to be the ones you suspect the least.

RJ

Clifton
Feb 16th 2008, 06:38 PM
Clifton I'll agree that Paul was keeping a vow in Ac.18:18; he cut his hair but I don't see how one could say Paul took a Nazirite vow. As for Jesus, yes He was a Nazarene because He lived in Nazareth. Mt.2:23; 4:13; 21:11; 26:71; Jn.1:45,46; Jesus the Nazarene Ac.2:22; 3:6; 22:8;

You can't prove He was on a Nazirite vow. It definitely would have been mentioned. The reason for Him being painted with long hair is I believe is because that was the style in the 14th and 15th century when people started painting the Messiah.

RJ


Well, my point was addressing that reference 1 Corinthians 11:14, and I pointed out other scriptures were the Nazarite Vow was not involved, where occasionally for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow. While it is "natural" for men to bear their hear short, and woman long, it is not a "sin" for them to do "otherwise".;)

As for 1 Corinthians 11, that is not the first time Paul ramble with a close-out of "never mind what I said..." - in verse 16 it is pointed out that they had no such custom nor the assemblies of God. Obviously so, since that would go against readings in the scriptures (bear in mind that what where called "Scriptures" in the NT refers to The Hebrew Scriptures).

Christ was quite respective of the Torah - As the Son Of God, I can't grasp the concept that He would not have taken a vows in being "consecrated unto God", or in the least, for singularity. I'll research the ancient historical texts and see what I come up with the refresh my memory.

As for the Shroud Of Turin, well, there are arguments "for" and "against" that as being an "image" of Christ.

Later.

Naphal
Feb 17th 2008, 03:27 AM
Naphal - sin dresses itself to look warm and inviting.

So no sin is ugly and dirty and uninviting?



The one explanation for Satan's fall was he was so taken with himself.

Yes through pride. He isnt described as being blond and blue eyed though. I'd like to know why you think that would be more what Satan would look like than what Jesus looks like.

RJ Mac
Feb 17th 2008, 07:39 PM
Naphal - I don't know of any Jews being tall, blond and blue eyed, especially in Jesus day. If He was He probably would have been considered a freak.

Our pictures today seem to come from modern thinking because in 15th century paintings of Christ He wasn't blond and blue eyed but the last time I was at a Christian store that's the picture I saw.

Yes sin is beautiful and attractive at first. That first drink, that first high, but how quickly its true colors come to light.

RJ

Naphal
Feb 17th 2008, 10:31 PM
Naphal - I don't know of any Jews being tall, blond and blue eyed, especially in Jesus day. If He was He probably would have been considered a freak.

Why in the world would you think that? There are Jews today in Israel that look that way but they are not considered freaks in any way.



Our pictures today seem to come from modern thinking because in 15th century paintings of Christ He wasn't blond and blue eyed but the last time I was at a Christian store that's the picture I saw.

I don't think scripture states what color hair or eyes he had so speculation either way is pointless.


Yes sin is beautiful and attractive at first. That first drink, that first high, but how quickly its true colors come to light.

Some sin might be but a lot of sin is as ugly looking as it truly is.

threebigrocks
Feb 18th 2008, 03:39 AM
If sin wasn't appealing, why would anyone do it? Of course it is appealing. If evil stared you in the face wouldn't you run if you saw it as evil? Even unbelievers would.

Naphal
Feb 18th 2008, 06:13 AM
If sin wasn't appealing, why would anyone do it? Of course it is appealing. If evil stared you in the face wouldn't you run if you saw it as evil? Even unbelievers would.


I'm just saying not all sin looks beautiful. There are some sins that we commit but don't want to but for whatever reason we feel it's a "necessary evil" as the saying goes.

Mograce2U
Feb 18th 2008, 04:02 PM
I'm just saying not all sin looks beautiful. There are some sins that we commit but don't want to but for whatever reason we feel it's a "necessary evil" as the saying goes.Like in looks evil but feels good? The worst looking sins I have found are those that other people do...

threebigrocks
Feb 18th 2008, 05:09 PM
I'm just saying not all sin looks beautiful. There are some sins that we commit but don't want to but for whatever reason we feel it's a "necessary evil" as the saying goes.

So sinning can be necessary? According to who? Looks like you are saying that sometimes we must sin. Please give scripture to support this notion.

Teke
Feb 18th 2008, 07:15 PM
My church does not, and has declined gifts of artwork that depict Jesus. It's consistent with early Jewish Christian practice regarding such depictions as posing a danger of idolatry. It is an element of Reformation Protestant distinctiveness that differentiated it from Roman Catholicism and settled Eastern Orthodox practice, where iconography in the use of statues, crucifixes, and rich illustrations of the Bible text proved as much a danger and avenue for error as it was helpful to visualizations of the Gospel.

I refer you to info on the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The Controversy

Disputes concerning the Person of Christ did not end with the sixth Council in AD 681, but continued through the eighth and ninth centuries. This time, the controversy focused on icons—pictures of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints, and holy events—and lasted for 120 years, starting in AD 726. Icons were kept and venerated in both churches and private homes. The two groups in the controversy were:

Iconoclasts
also called "icon-smashers," they were suspicious of any art depicting God or humans; they demanded the destruction of icons because they saw icons as idolatry.
Iconodules
also called "venerators of icons," they defended the place of icons in the Church.

The controversy, however, was more than a struggle over different views of Christian art. Deeper issues were involved, and it is these the Council addressed:

* The character of Christ's human nature
* The Christian attitude toward matter
* The true meaning of Christian redemption and the salvation of the entire material universe


The controversy falls into two periods:

1. From AD 726 when Leo III began his attack on icons until AD 780 when Empress Irene ended the attacks
2. Again from AD 815 through AD 843 when Empress Theodora stamped out the attacks permanently

For more info and history, look here. (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council)

A bit more to it than one would think. Keep in mind this is when the Church was united in and by councils.



Most evangelical Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, and later the Baptists, Methodists, etc...) did not initially support iconography, and for those now accepting their use, it has only been since the close of the 19th century that their usage has gained favour.

What is your reference for this info?

Mograce2U
Feb 18th 2008, 07:21 PM
I refer you to info on the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
...
A bit more to it than one would think. Keep in mind this is when the Church was united in and by councils.
Yet in those churches who do support such things you find superstition is also attached to them. Which would seem to make the charge of their idolatrous nature valid.

Teke
Feb 18th 2008, 07:58 PM
Yet in those churches who do support such things you find superstition is also attached to them. Which would seem to make the charge of their idolatrous nature valid.

A stronger Christian should uphold a weaker Christian. Christian's who are superstitious should be corrected with understanding.

The issue was one the Church had to deal with. People kept pictures in their homes. They likely would not have stopped this practice.

There were also many other factors taken into consideration, which is the point I wanted to make.

One of the Apostles painted the first icon, would we call an Apostle an idol worshiper. I mean we can't go extreme and just discount all forms of art as being idol related. So parameters must be defined with wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

BTW, the parameters defined didn't include three dimensional depictions, such as statues. Only two dimensional, like the Bible. Grit is mistaken about Orthodox on this point, as they do not use statues of beings because it is contrary to their canons.

Really don't we find superstition everywhere. Do not evangelist send out prayer cloths and other things to people, to believe that they will do something for them......
I've spoken to a few elderly folks about that sort of practice, as it has brought such great havoc to their lives financially.

Codger
Feb 18th 2008, 09:15 PM
Images were taboo in the OT and this transfered into the NT. Today we have pix of a Zeus kind of Jesus with a beard and long hair. The beard is accurate because Isaiah said that they would pluck out his beard. But you are right - there is no tradition for long hair. It was not the custom of the day. Even Paul said it was a shame for a man to have long hair.

The prophet also indicates that Jesus was rather plain looking or even homley as there would be nothing about him that would attract us. So how can we make statues and paintings of the Apostles, disciples, and Jesus if we really don't know what they looked like. We have all kinds of super accurate statues of major characters from the Roman period. Most of the Emperors are known today to us by their surviving busts and statues. It just goes to show how anti-image the early Christians really were.

I don't think we should make a big deal out of this however. If Jesus appeared to you in a dream or vision he would appear in a form that you would instantly recognize - like the Zeus images. No big deal.

Codger
Feb 18th 2008, 09:27 PM
As for the Shroud Of Turin, well, there are arguments "for" and "against" that as being an "image" of Christ.

Later.

I don't think you need to be a scientist to determine the validity of the shroud. All you have to know is OT prophesy. His image was to be marred more than any man.

Isaiah 52:14 (KJV)
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

The shroud shows in detail his facial features - it may be a crucified body that made the imprint but there were 10's of thousands who were crucified in that part of the world as many cultures practiced impalment as a form of capital punishment. When the real Jesus was wrapped in burial cloths - he didn't even look like a man.

No - I don't think it is the image of Jesus.

Larry

Naphal
Feb 18th 2008, 10:04 PM
So sinning can be necessary? According to who? Looks like you are saying that sometimes we must sin. Please give scripture to support this notion.

No I didn't say it was necessary but someone can feel like they have no other choice so they view the sin as not something pleasant opposed to your belief that all sin is appealing.

Here is an example. I say on TV once a man who had murdered someone while in progress of committing a home break in robbery. This man had only wanted to steal but the owner caught him and had a gun so the thief fought with the man and shot him with the owners gun in desperation. Now, thats still murder and still a sin but he really didn't view it as "appealing" or desirable. He didn't want to do it but did anyways.

You said:



If sin wasn't appealing, why would anyone do it? Of course it is appealing. If evil stared you in the face wouldn't you run if you saw it as evil? Even unbelievers would.


And it was also said earlier:



sin dresses itself to look warm and inviting.


Well, it's not always that way. Some sin is unappealing and horrible and not everyone turns away from it.

Naphal
Feb 18th 2008, 10:11 PM
Isaiah 52:14 (KJV)
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

The shroud shows in detail his facial features

Visage in the verse does not mean "face" but overall appearance.

ה
mar'eh
mar-eh'
From H7200; a view (the act of seeing); also an appearance (the thing seen), whether (real) a shape (especially if handsome, comeliness; often plural the looks), or (mental) a vision: - X apparently, appearance (-reth), X as soon as beautiful (-ly), countenance, fair, favoured, form, goodly, to look (up) on (to), look [-eth], pattern, to see, seem, sight, visage, vision.

Codger
Feb 19th 2008, 03:24 AM
Visage in the verse does not mean "face" but overall appearance.

ה
mar'eh
mar-eh'
From H7200; a view (the act of seeing); also an appearance (the thing seen), whether (real) a shape (especially if handsome, comeliness; often plural the looks), or (mental) a vision: - X apparently, appearance (-reth), X as soon as beautiful (-ly), countenance, fair, favoured, form, goodly, to look (up) on (to), look [-eth], pattern, to see, seem, sight, visage, vision.


I think your definition from strongs contradicts your statement.

Naphal
Feb 19th 2008, 03:30 AM
I think your definition from strongs contradicts your statement.

I made my statement based on that definition. The word is not specific to one's face but overall appearance as the definition clearly shows.

Mograce2U
Feb 19th 2008, 04:04 AM
No I didn't say it was necessary but someone can feel like they have no other choice so they view the sin as not something pleasant opposed to your belief that all sin is appealing.

Here is an example. I say on TV once a man who had murdered someone while in progress of committing a home break in robbery. This man had only wanted to steal but the owner caught him and had a gun so the thief fought with the man and shot him with the owners gun in desperation. Now, thats still murder and still a sin but he really didn't view it as "appealing" or desirable. He didn't want to do it but did anyways. I can just hear that thief saying "but Judge, it wasn't my fault!" :rofl: