Images of Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Dr. Sproul's argument is the standard Lutheran defense of images of our Lord.
The Commandment prohibiting no Graven images, nor representing of God would seem to be to keep us from speculating on how God would appear, as Mankind has had various god images of crass and craven creatures like the Molten calf as God.
Picturing on a painting/drawing, or on TV/Movies would not be in direct violation of that, as God did indeed come as a Man and dwelt among us.
 
Last edited:

Gforce9

Puritan Board Junior
The Commandmnet prohibiting no Graven images, nor representing of God would seem to be to keep us from speculating on how God would appear, as Mankind has had various god images of crass and craven creatures like the Molten cafe as God.
Picturing on a painting/drawing, or on TV/Movies would not be in direct violation of that, as God did indeed come as a Man and dwelt among us.

:popcorn:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
The only problem with Dachasers assessment is that that would only be applicable if one was able to seperate Christ's humanity and divinity. Since that is heretical, the premise is defunct.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
The only problem with Dachasers assessment is that that would only be applicable if one was able to seperate Christ's humanity and divinity. Since that is heretical, the premise is defunct.
I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.

Jesus is fully God; hence, unless u split the idea, it would be a break in the 2nd commandment to portray any image.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Christ was not an image, but a person. To create an image of His personage would be a break in the 2nd commandment.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
The scriptures themselves bear witness against fabricating any godly images. Surely everyone would agree that there were capable artists over the 6k years of the church; as scripture was canonized, if the HS had led men to create visual helps, we would have those renderings included with scripture. The scriptures need no help and adding images only blur the lines.
 

jw

Administrator
I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.
IMG_0417.JPG
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
I am not advocating for us to have a split personality Jesus, but that the Commandment referred to God who is invisible being portrayed by Mankind as a physical form, but since the Incarnation happened, God did have a real physical form to represent to us now.
I have no idea what you are trying to say or argue here. If you disagree with the position stated often herein concerning images of the Godhead, then please make your assertions plain. I prefer not to assume what you are attempting by this post's jejune interpretation of the second commandment.

Per Chalcedon, the union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused. This is de fide. It is not debatable. All proper arguments pertaining to Christology, especially the Incarnation start and end with these presuppositions.

Accordingly, images purporting to be the mere human nature of Our Lord is ignoring the very Person being so purportedly represented and is in direct opposition to what the church has declared to be heresy: that these natures can be divided up into different Persons (Nestorianism).

If you have an actual exegetical argument that the second commandment does not apply to images of the Person of Jesus Christ that does not violate what the church militant has declared from careful consideration of the whole counsel of Scripture, I would be very interested in reading your argument.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
What was Calvin's argument?

Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal Son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a Crucifix stands mopping & mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. (Sermon on Deuteronomy, 23 May, 1555).
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Borrowing/stealing that quote. I had not read it before (no, I haven't made it through the Deut. sermons).
Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal Son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a Crucifix stands mopping & mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. (Sermon on Deuteronomy, 23 May, 1555).
 
Last edited:

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
David, you need to read Danny Hyde's book before you keep arguing from the incarnation to the permission of images of Jesus. Your argument is not only very standard, but very much answered.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
David, you need to read Danny Hyde's book before you keep arguing from the incarnation to the permission of images of Jesus. Your argument is not only very standard, but very much answered.
Thanks for that. So Christians should not be allowing for Jesus to be shown on TV shows or in the Movies than?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I have no idea what you are trying to say or argue here. If you disagree with the position stated often herein concerning images of the Godhead, then please make your assertions plain. I prefer not to assume what you are attempting by this post's jejune interpretation of the second commandment.

Per Chalcedon, the union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused. This is de fide. It is not debatable. All proper arguments pertaining to Christology, especially the Incarnation start and end with these presuppositions.

Accordingly, images purporting to be the mere human nature of Our Lord is ignoring the very Person being so purportedly represented and is in direct opposition to what the church has declared to be heresy: that these natures can be divided up into different Persons (Nestorianism).

If you have an actual exegetical argument that the second commandment does not apply to images of the Person of Jesus Christ that does not violate what the church militant has declared from careful consideration of the whole counsel of Scripture, I would be very interested in reading your argument.
I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.
Would this mean that Christians should not have Jesus ever portrayed in either TV shows or in movies then?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
David,
Are u reading anything on the two threads dealing w/ the subject? I believe this is what Patrick and Lane are trying to convey to you.
 

Gforce9

Puritan Board Junior
I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.
Would this mean that Christians should not have Jesus ever portrayed in either TV shows or in movies then?

The 2nd Commandment States specifically that we may NOT make a representation of Him, contrary to the assertion made in the middle of the cited post.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
The 2nd Commandment States specifically that we may NOT make a representation of Him, contrary to the assertion made in the middle of the cited post.
I stand corrected, as I was not thinking through fully what my position was in this area.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I placed a quote earlier by J. Edwards-it is relevant here. I did earlier in my life. Prior to me becoming a believer, even early in my walk. But as Christ taught me through the scriptures and I grew in grace, I stopped doing that because it is condemned in the word of God! As well, most attempts at any movie produced is so goofy and wonky that I could not stomach their faulty approach to God and His word anyways.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
I am not denying at all anything that agreed upon per Chaledon, as I was just saying that God Himself has come to us in human flesh, and so we should be able to represent Him as being God in human flesh with us. The picture/painting is not Him, is not to venerate or have us show affection towards, as it is honoring Him by presentation of Him.
Then you have failed to understand my post that you quoted.

The "him" in any purported representation is the Person, Jesus Christ. If you read my post and its included links you would understand that this One person is not something to divide up and represent via vain images as being "God in human flesh" in hopes of seeking an end run around the second commandment. As others have stated, if these so-called images are images of Our Lord, then we owe them our worship. Surely you see the error of this, no?
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?
I don't think I ever have, at least I don't recall any. I gave up watching any TV or films years ago. As Brother Bushey mentioned in an earlier post, I couldn't stomach the representation. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I had to struggle to avoid mental images of our Lord. Not least the aforementioned portrait that was popular in Baptist, and other Christian circles, but even in my reading the Scriptures.
The woman at the well, feeding the 5,000, or walking on the water, ad infinitum. In an old thread on this topic I asked if it was possible to read the Gospels without visualising, in our mind's eye, images of our Lord. Well it is, but it isn't always easy. Particularly when a person first learns it is sin, but had been routinely bringing these imaginations up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top