Thief Returns Icon of Baby Jesus, Says Prank Proves Point

Toledo Blade ^ | December 30, 2003 | David Yonke

[gdani]

A figure of baby Jesus stolen from a Maumee church is back in his manger, wearing a new coat - of paint, that is.

During his two-week absence, Jesus’ white skin was covered with dark brown paint, said the Rev. Roger Miller, pastor of St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on East Wayne Street.

[gdani]

It's after Christmas & there are still nativity scene stories floating around.........

[Hank Rearden]

This thief guy is insufficiently celebrating our diversity.

[thoughtomator]

If there was no idolatrous making of images, there would be zero issue.

[Skooz]

"Although you probably knew this but would rather not be reminded."

How precious. A snotty remark penned by a brainwashed thief with a superiority complex.

The thief added that the paint job was "not some sort of racial thing ... actually I’m white. But I know what color Jesus was."

Not unless you were around 2000 years ago, numb-brain.

[Campion]

An image of Jesus is not an idol. An idol, by definition, is an image of a false god. Jesus is not a false god, at least not to Christians. In fact, Scripture says explicitly that Jesus is the image (Greek, eikon) of the invisible God.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Most Jews were swarthy, with olive skin, brown eyes, and brown or black hair," said Dr. Bowden, a Rutgers University professor from Red Bank, N.J.

Swarthy Jews ping.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Jesus was not an Aryan but actually a man of color.

I'm so freaking tired of this "of color" crap. My skin has color to it. It even matches the color of Band-Aids fairly well.

Even though I'm a person of European color descent (European-American???) I now claim Hispanic on all forms so that I can get freebies and admittance when I normally would not be allowed. Back of the bus for me due to my "color." Adios...

[AdamSelene235]

I would point out that Jesus was not an Aryan but actually a man of color.

Uh, Aryans were pretty dark skinned. This "enlightened" loon is getting his history from the Nazis.

[NativeNewYorker]

Every US Jew I know is as pale as pale can be. :)

[Old Professer]

You'd think that after all this time that stories about this guy would just go away...

[SuziQ]

Our Parish put up a lovely Creche out in front of the Church this year. Individuals donated the almost $35,000 needed for the large set of nearly life-sized figures. Some men of the Parish built a lovely stable, installed lights, a security system, and even tempered glass all around. Unless someone continually beats on the glass, it isn't going anywhere. That way we don't have to worry about folks stealing Baby Jesus at Christmas.

It is right out on Main Street, so all who pass by can see it clearly. Father Dennis is hoping it will be a source for conversion of heart; maybe folks will remember that Jesus IS "The Reason for the Season"

[ikka]

The thief added that the paint job was "not some sort of racial thing ... actually I’m white. But I know what color Jesus was."

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE: under 25, college "educated". Expect his major to be in English, womyn's studies, basket weaving, etc. rather than physics or computer science.

Possibly metrosexual (check the paint for its origin: if from Home Depot, probably not, if it is fancy-schmancy boutique paint, definitely).

[reed_inthe_wind]

Christmas is a high holy day in a Christians life. The nativity obviously plays a rich part in this celebration. A serious denial of fundamental rights is being ignored and obfuscated by emphasizing skin color. This is more than a prank - what has been lost can not be returned. This jackass should be required to perform some sort of community service.

[BlessedBeGod]

The thief added that the paint job was "not some sort of racial thing..."

B.S.

... actually I’m white. But I know what color Jesus was..."
The thief meticulously applied the new coat of paint to the Fiberglas statue, Mr. Miller said, with the figure’s fingernails and palms carefully painted a shade of gray.

Okay, so you know for a fact that Jesus' fingernails and palms were gray. Uh-huh

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Did he add girth to the statue, to make Jesus appear a broader and larger man?

[N. Theknow]

A thief "steals" a baby Jesus figure.

A thief takes two weeks to paint the figure brown and return the figure.

A thief says he knows what color baby Jesus really was.

Jesus!

[mlmr]

I think every church in the country needs to set up a creche in their front yards every Christmas.

[Mr. Mojo]

Every US Jew I know is as pale as pale can be. :)

What, you don't know any Sephardis? ;)

[NativeNewYorker]

Nope. My "tribe" are all of the East European/Russian flavor, with a couple of generations of state-side mixing added in.

[thoughtomator]

2nd Commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

Sorry but there is no "Jesus" exception to idolatry, nor is there any "true God" exception.

[marshmallow]

Now think about this for a moment.

What is the point of a "graven image"? It takes the place of Almighty God, does it not? It is something to which we give honor and worship instead of to God. Icons and statues remind us of God. They do the opposite.

See the difference?

The way I always attempt to explain this, is as follows.

Do you carry in your wallet, an image of a loved one? A spouse, perhaps, or a parent or child or sibling? What is the point of this image? Is it not to remind you of that person and make them present to you when you are not physically with them? You treasure such an image.

Now do you you think that your spouse, for instance, might become angry and offended because you are treasuring the image and not him or her? Would he or she become jealous of that image? The very notion is absurd, isn't it?

Similarly, icons and statues aid us in giving honor and praise to God. We do not worship a piece of wood or plaster in place of the one, true God. Rather, like the photo in your wallet, it is the image of a loved one.

[thoughtomator]

The point of the Commandment is that if you make a representation of God, some of His followers will end up worshipping the representation. Hence, all representations are forbidden.

I really don't see how He could have made His wishes with regards to this matter any more explicit than that. Any graven image or likeness for the purpose of worship is in direct contradiction of the plain meaning of this Commandment.

For six thousand years, no Jew has worshipped God using graven images of any sort. Don't you think that if the logic you presented were permissible, at some point during those thousands of years we would have Jewish images of God in temples and synagogues?

If these images are not forbidden, how then can you explain the complete absence of graven images in Judaic worship?

[Indrid Cold]

I've been threatening to start doing that, except I was going to check "Asian/Pacific Islander". I have light brown hair and blue eyes, but in today's climate I don't think anyone would DARE question whatever heritage I choose to put down.

[Seniram US]

Statues do not equal idolatry. If a man carries a picture of his mother or his wife or children in his wallet, it is a reminder. He doesn't idolize the picture.

Similarly, the statues of historical figures such as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are reminders. A statue of a religiuos figure, such as Baby Jesus or the Saints is also only a reminder. Enjoying the sight of a picture or figure of Christ is not idolotry, despite the myths that have claimed it equates idolatry for centuries.

[Campion]

For six thousand years, no Jew has worshipped God using graven images of any sort.

Please open your Bible, and note what appeared atop the most sacred cultic object in pre-Exile Judaism, the Ark of the Covenant. That's right: graven images of angels. Directly commanded to be put there by God, BTW.

Don't you think that if the logic you presented were permissible, at some point during those thousands of years we would have Jewish images of God in temples and synagogues?

Minor problem: until the Incarnation, God was not visible. You can't make an image of something invisible, by definition. The Incarnation made God visible in human form. If you don't believe that, that is your choice, but we are Christians and we do believe it.

If these images are not forbidden, how then can you explain the complete absence of graven images in Judaic worship?

I don't know ... how do you explain the angels atop the Ark of the Covenant, the 12 bronze oxen which held up the brazen sea, and the golden grapevine which decorated the gate of the Sanctuary (according to Josephus) ... in view of this alleged "complete absence of graven images in Judaic worship"?

[thoughtomator]

If one believes, as Christians do, that Jesus is God, then an image of Jesus directly conflicts with the 2nd Commandment. A man carrying a picture of his wife isn't worshipping it. A statue of a saint doesn't make the saint an object of worship. However, for Christians, Jesus IS the object of worship - and therefore, if one believes that Jesus is God, then by making graven images of Jesus one violates this Commandment.

[Campion]

Sorry but there is no "Jesus" exception to idolatry

Identify yourself. Are you (a) not a Christian; (b) a Christian from some odd group which never, ever makes or uses pictures of Jesus anywhere; or (c) a hypocrite?

[thoughtomator]

... how do you explain the angels atop the Ark of the Covenant, the 12 bronze oxen which held up the brazen sea, and the golden grapevine which decorated the gate of the Sanctuary (according to Josephus) ... in view of this alleged "complete absence of graven images in Judaic worship"?

Very straightforwardly. Neither the angels, nor the oxen, nor the grapevine, at any point in time, are asserted to be God, nor are they worshipped.

[Campion]

Neither the angels, nor the oxen, nor the grapevine, at any point in time, are asserted to be God, nor are they worshipped

Precisely. Thus there is no "absence of graven images in Judaic worship," but only an absence of graven images of God. Why? God had not come in visible form, thus any graven images that the Jews could make of God would be false ones. Christians, by definition, believe that God has come in visible form.

Christians do not worship statues of Jesus, BTW.

[thoughtomator]

(a)

[thoughtomator]

So at what point did God rescind his 2nd Commandment then?

[Campion]

That's fair. But your belief is not ours.

[Campion]

So at what point did God rescind his 2nd Commandment then?

WRT the making of images of Jesus, around 6 BC, when "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That's the essence of Christianity: God became visible, He took on human nature.

[thoughtomator]

Well, I've been asking this question a while now, and I've yet to get an answer that is consistent with the 2nd Commandment. Either (a) images of Jesus, according to Christian belief, are in violation of the 2nd Commandment; (b) the 2nd Commandment was rescinded at some point; or (c) there is an explanation of these images that doesn't violate the 2nd Commandment.

If (c), what is that explanation?

[MadelineZapeezda]

rigmarole

So this is how this word is spelled! I thought there was an 'a' in it.

[thoughtomator]

Can you tell me where I can find that info in Christian doctrine? Is it in the New Testament somewhere?

[wtc911]

You've really got to get out of Williamsburg once in a while.

[Textide]

and therefore, if one believes that Jesus is God, then by making graven images of Jesus one violates this Commandment.

You're still making the assumption that someone who kneels before a statue of Jesus is worshipping the plaster and not God. The plaster is not recognized as the actually person of Jesus and is not worshipped. If it fell and broke into a thousand pieces, it wouldn't break the faith of those who knelt before it as they prayed.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

...I don't think anyone would DARE question whatever heritage I choose to put down.

I agree. Although some extreme liberals probably would question my stating that I am Hispanic. How dare I get benefits that they want sent to a race other than mine.

I can see it now. Jail time for incorrectly stating my ethnic background. Sounds like some kind of Nazi (liberal) scheme to me.

[Campion]

If (c), what is that explanation?

The commandment is stated hyperbolically ("don't make a graven image of anything"), but even Jews have never taken it literally (as I've explained) but only as a prohibition of making an image of God. But the prohibition was really against making an image of a false god, since any image the Israelites could have made would have been exactly that.

There is self-evidently nothing intrinsically wrong with making an image of the true God, if were possible -- it's not as though God objects to having his picture made. Obviously, one does not worship such an image, any more than a man considers himself married to the photograph of a woman he carries in his wallet.

In the Incarnation, God became visible in human form. The previously impossible -- making an image of the true God -- became possible.

[Campion]

Can you tell me where I can find that info in Christian doctrine? Is it in the New Testament somewhere?

The teaching was made explicit by the Council of II Nicaea, against the iconoclasts ("image breakers"), who, perhaps influenced by the Muslims, tried to remove all images from Christian worship.

But it's implicit in the NT. Hebrews calls Jesus "the image [eikon] of the invisible God". First John talks about the reality of the Incarnation ("what we have touched/what we have seen with our eyes/the Word of Life"). The Gospel of John puts it more succinctly: "the Word was God ... the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". If Word=God, and God=flesh, and flesh is visible, then making a picture of God is clearly possible. Of course, it's not God, still just a picture. A teaching and meditation aid.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

An "I Can't Believe You're Not Here Yet" ping. : )

[NativeNewYorker]

LOL!

I was born there, but now only go back every other year to eat at Luger's.

[stripes1776]

there is an explanation of these images that doesn't violate the 2nd Commandment.

It's been many years since I studied church iconography, but it goes something like this: the image points beyond itself. The image isn't the important thing. The important thing is what the image symbolizes.

It depends on the attitude of the person approaching the image. Any image can become an idol if you approach it as an idol--that is the thing in itself that doesn't lead any further than itself. It is possible to make the world itself an idol if you see nothing beyong mere physical existence.

But if you approach the image as an icon, then it serves its purpose to lead you to contemplation of things beyond this world of physical matter. And that is the lesson of the physical universe, to lead you beyond itself to that spiritual reality upon which the world depends for its existence and is the ultimate source of all goodness and beauty.

As I recall, the ideas behind iconograpy are based upon incarnational theology. That sounds a bit abstract. I hope that gives some explanation, although not a very thorough or adequate one.

[thoughtomator]

After doing a little bit of research, it seems that this particular question is not well settled. Although the Council of Nicea II did in fact endorse the making of images, this was over 700 years after the fact, and the practices of the early Christian Church seems to contradict that finding.

On a contemporary level, it also appears that both my impression of the subject and yours are common in modern theological debate.

There are two problems with the proposition that the images in question are not idolatrous; first is the story of the golden calf, and second the bronze snake. In the case of the calf it appears that the act of worshipping the icon as God in fact brought His wrath upon them. With regards to the bronze snake, although He commanded it be made, He later commanded it destroyed, as people had begun to venerate the snake itself, and thus descended into idolatry.

Thoughts?

[stripes1776]

worshipping the icon as God

I believe the distinction in iconography is between worship and veneration of images. Worshipping an icon would be considered idolatry by even the most ardent supporter of images in a religious context.

people had begun to venerate the snake itself

The key word there is "itself." The image must always remain transparent to the spirituality reality to which it points. If the icon becomes opaque and is approached for itself, then this is indeed idolotry because it no longer refers to a transcendent reality.

The arguments are subtle and I doubt that they will ever convince someone opposed to images of any kind in a religious setting. But I'm not trying to write an apologia for iconography, just to articulate the thinking of someone whose religious tradition includes the use of images in this way.

[Inyokern]

You're still making the assumption that someone who kneels before a statue of Jesus is worshipping the plaster and not God. The plaster is not recognized as the actually person of Jesus and is not worshipped. If it fell and broke into a thousand pieces, it wouldn't break the faith of those who knelt before it as they prayed.

Pagan idols were never thought to be the god itself, but only a representation of the god. If the idol broke, they would just make a new one.

If you want to find a difference between a statue of Jesus and an idol, you will have to try again.