Doowopjock Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 122 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/31/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1949 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I believe the only images available to us are all still "man's idea" of what Jesus loox like. But I suppose there may be something to the fact that they all look so similar. True confession here--I am NOT educated in a lot of these things. Most of what I suspect, while having heard various teachings over the years from different men and women of God, is still largely my own speculation. I have an understanding of God's Word that gets me from one day to the next, but as to delving into the mysteries of the Word, much of it falls under the part of Deut. 29:29 that tells me some things are just not for me to know. Still--I like reading what y'all write here. I find it at least as interesting as anything else I've heard on these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.49 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2009 I believe the only images available to us are all still "man's idea" of what Jesus loox like. But I suppose there may be something to the fact that they all look so similar. True confession here--I am NOT educated in a lot of these things. Most of what I suspect, while having heard various teachings over the years from different men and women of God, is still largely my own speculation. I have an understanding of God's Word that gets me from one day to the next, but as to delving into the mysteries of the Word, much of it falls under the part of Deut. 29:29 that tells me some things are just not for me to know. Still--I like reading what y'all write here. I find it at least as interesting as anything else I've heard on these matters. Ditto that, my Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.20 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yes, allow me to ask a question about the length of hair. From my studies, the woman's hair was long enough to wrap around themselves as a vale, hiding their face to the sandstorms and honor. Men would not have hair like this, but how short is too long? 1 inch ... how about 3 inches ... maybe up to 12 inches? As long as it was not down to their waste, it was not like woman's covering, but that would be pushing it too much. This would also lead one to believe that a shaved head is best, but didn't a shaved head mean that took an oath? I think this is way too legalistic, but hey, been down this road before ... Yes, I would have to agree that the meaning of "long" would be relative. In the image that we know of Jesus, would you say He has long or short hair? That all depends on which picture you are talking about. I have seen both. Yet, no picture that I have seen shows Jesus with hair long enough to wrap around him as a veil. You're trying make a defense for that image...........why? Can you provide scripture that states those images of Jesus are acceptable? Whether the image has long hair or short hair, is it ok to have them? First of all, I am protecting no picture of Jesus because none was ever done while He sat there, so they are just imagined likenesses of what the artist thinks He may of looked like ... and it was you that pointed out the the length of hair was the issue, which is what I am discussing. Now, if you want to talk about having a picture of Jesus, why not? The only trouble I would have is if someone thought that the picture was Jesus Himself. Then, that would be worshiping an idol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Clay Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 60 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2009 Man, I suppose it is for effect that you are being particularly vague, so you force us to guess at your hypothesis. Are you saying that the classic image of Christ we see in paintings is a trick of the devil and we find ourselves worshiping someone with long hair when it should have been short? As far as I know the paintings of Christ are reflective of the description of Christ given by Flavius and recorded by Josephus. But even if Christ was actually bald and Asian it would not change a thing for me. I do not worship His image, I worship Him whom I am sure will not look like the paintings when we see Him in glory. The thing is, there's not even supposed to be a picture, a painting, a statue, or whatever. Those things are strictly forbidden. We are not to have any of those things............period. Man - you are under grace, not law, my brother. All things are lawful for you, just not all things are helpful (1 Cor 6:12). I am free to have a painting of Jesus on my wall or an image of Him on my computer desktop. But if you don't understand that I have that freedom, and you see my painting of Him and are offended, to the point of stumbling, I do have an obligation to respect your lack of knowledge of our freedom (1 Cor Chapter 8, Romans Chapter 14). ~clay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Man - you are under grace, not law, my brother. So being under grace gives us freedom to ignore the Word of God? Let me ask you, if all those verses on idolatry do not apply to us because we're under grace, who do they apply too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 First of all, I am protecting no picture of Jesus because none was ever done while He sat there, so they are just imagined likenesses of what the artist thinks He may of looked like ... and it was you that pointed out the the length of hair was the issue, which is what I am discussing. Now, if you want to talk about having a picture of Jesus, why not? The only trouble I would have is if someone thought that the picture was Jesus Himself. Then, that would be worshiping an idol. You just called that image "Jesus". Are you making reference to the Jesus of the Bible, or is there another one out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I believe the only images available to us are all still "man's idea" of what Jesus loox like. Deuteronomy 4 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.49 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2009 Personally, I think that the Lord was reminding them who their God is. That He is different from the gods of the Egyptians. And, it is a warning to them for when they go into the Promised Land, and are surrounded by pagan gods. For the tribes didn't heed the words from the Lord. They didn't take into their hearts what He was warning them against, for they brought down into their midst the aphis bulls, and the Astoreth Poles. They mixed their worship with that of the pagans, and corrupted their beliefs. And because of it, the kingdom ended up split, divided from the north and the south. And the Lord allowed them to be carried off and conquered by their enemies, because they bowed to other gods. He told them to be a holy nation, apart from the rest of the world. Instead, they mingled and mixed until they looked like their neighbors. Just like now. We're mixing some of the world's belief systems with that of the truth. Our God is in our hearts. Our God is real, tangible, alive. We don't need a golden statue. Other religions put as much value to their statues as they do their god. they "flaunt" their faith by how valuable their statue is. they witness their faith by how elaborate their statues are. We, the true believers, carry our God within us. I think the scriptures are explaining this, man. That there is a vast difference between what is false, and Who is Truth. I anm also reminded of Acts 17, when Paul is on Mars Hill, and is explaining that God is not in carved images that were made by hand. anyway - that's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.20 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2009 First of all, I am protecting no picture of Jesus because none was ever done while He sat there, so they are just imagined likenesses of what the artist thinks He may of looked like ... and it was you that pointed out the the length of hair was the issue, which is what I am discussing. Now, if you want to talk about having a picture of Jesus, why not? The only trouble I would have is if someone thought that the picture was Jesus Himself. Then, that would be worshiping an idol. You just called that image "Jesus". Are you making reference to the Jesus of the Bible, or is there another one out there? Stop with the game playing. I don't share your fears. Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exrockstar Posted July 9, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,673 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 111 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2009 we are not to have images because WE (the church) are the image. duh! now close this thread or lets go back to the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts