RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?
One of the results is that people start thinking Jesus looks like Ewan McGregor in The Clone Wars or Kenny Loggins.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?
Not for decades; the ones before that are problems enough, thank you. David, I think this thread is example "prime" of the scattershot way you post to threads. Stop doing this. Read the threads and understand the content before opining.So you have never watched any movies or tv shows about Jesus then?
It is striking the way imagination becomes active in a matter of anticipation. On the other hand, where the object is a matter of possession there is cause for reflection. I find this relevant in light of two things. 1. Christ is given in possession to the believer, Eph. 3:17. The imagination should cease and reflection should be active. 2. The visible and sensible elements of bread and wine are specifically given to us for the purpose of remembrance, which should invoke reflection.
To speak pastorally, the way to cure a sensual imagination is to "see" Christ as the apostles "remembered" Him, full of grace and truth; and in His offices as our complete Saviour; and as He is made of God to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and to reflect with a trusting heart on the present enjoyment of Christ so as to rest in Him. Where the soul rests and reflects, the imagination has no cause to stir.
What about when the child grows up, and wishes he didn't have a "cartoonJesus" or some other version in his head that he has to "remove" or guard against whenever he is thinking religiously?
The problem can be analyzed several different ways, but one that I think is profitable is to understand that whenever we make an image of Jesus, we are "going the wrong direction" in our thinking about him. It is not hard to think of Jesus in human terms. The Bible's descriptions do that admirably. The fact was (and is) that those encounters by the disciples and the crowds were meant to reveal to them that Jesus wasn't "just a man" at all, but was God incarnate.
When we make a representation of Jesus' human body--beside the implicit nestorian heresy involved (that his two natures may be separated)--we are reducing Jesus; we are trying in effect to "know him after the flesh" once again, when we are supposed to "know him thus no more." ALL (!) our encounters with Jesus, in every authorized presentation, are supposed to lead us--as they led the first disciples--to higher and higher thoughts of him.
The Bible is abundantly clear on this point (just read your Old Testament, to say nothing of the New):
IMAGES DO THE VERY OPPOSITE.
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 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.
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.
I stand corrected, as I was not thinking through fully what my position was in this area.
Exactly what is your position?
How might we speak to them in a way that honors the intention, which is not to create idols but rather to proclaim the gospel to the world outside of the gutenberg press, and likewise brings them back to the letter and intent of the 2nd commandment? Or do we care?
There is a struggle now about how to portray the gospel to this manner of culture, which I daresay future generations in America will fall into that category.
...How might we speak to them in a way that honors the intention, which is not to create idols but rather to proclaim the gospel to the world outside of the gutenberg press, and likewise brings them back to the letter and intent of the 2nd commandment? Or do we care?
I Corinthians 1:21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
Romans 10:14-1514 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
I think that my position on this was not fully taking into account what the Commandment really was intended to speak to us concerning how God wants us to correctly honor and revere Him, so would see myself lining up now and agreeing with those posting here that see any representations of Jesus as being in violation of that being expressly forbidden by God. I think that a lot of what I was thinking here was much more driven by being conditioned by the culture than the scriptures in this circumstance.Have you come to a more studied position on this matter, David? Do you still think images of Our Lord are acceptable for honoring Him so long as we do not venerate these images?
heheheJosh needs a tutorial on how to reasonably resize images so as not to SHOUT.
I cannot make out this garbled phrase "so would see myself lining up not and agreeing", but I think you are actually stating here that you now rightly view all images of Our Lord to be forbidden. Correct?I think that my position on this was not fully tsking into account what the Commandment really was intended to speak to us concerning how God wants us to correct honor and revere Him, so would see myself lining up not and agreeing with those posting here that see any representations of Jesus as being in violation of that being expressly forbidden by God. I think that a lot of what I was thinking here was much more driven by being conditioned by the culture than the scriptures in this circumstance.
Brother, your skill at obfuscation is truly enviable! After six or so attempts, I still can't make head or tail of this. What does "lining up and not agreeing" mean? Please make really short sentences for me.I think that my position on this was not fully tsking into account what the Commandment really was intended to speak to us concerning how God wants us to correct honor and revere Him, so would see myself lining up not and agreeing with those posting here that see any representations of Jesus as being in violation of that being expressly forbidden by God. I think that a lot of what I was thinking here was much more driven by being conditioned by the culture than the scriptures in this circumstance.
That would be correct.I cannot make out this garbled phrase "so would see myself lining up not and agreeing", but I think you are actually stating here that you now rightly view all images of Our Lord to be forbidden. Correct?
AMR
Please read the edited posting.Brother, your skill at obfuscation is truly enviable! After six or so attempts, I still can't make head or tail of this. What does "lining up and not agreeing" mean? Please make really short sentences for me.
Blessings to you.