VANITY: Question for Christians

3/30/2004 | me

[yonif]

The Jewish tradition states that we should not make graven images of God. Is this in the Christian tradition as well? Because I have seen Catholics wearing crosses with Jesus on them and even houses having hung crosses with Jesus on them. How is this justified? Thanks

Ex.

[SoothingDave]

Where I am going out on a limb is to say that ritual without the belief of the truth behind it, can be helpful in cementing/teaching the belief of that truth.

I'm with you 100 percent. Sorry if I confused you.

SD

[MarMema]

Oh no. I am just rambling aloud. It is a fascinating topic and so nice to be in a diverse group with no one name-calling, and such genuinely respectful discussion among us all. IMO.

[Campion]

But Samuel regarded it as a very greivous moral offense for Saul to call up his spirit, and seek Prayers through him. Why? I don't know. But Samuel didn't like it one bit.

A couple of points on this:

1. Your memory of the story is flawed. 1 Samuel 28:15 says that Saul conjured up Samuel, not to ask for his prayers, but to fortell the future. That's totally different. Catholics and Orthodox would agree that fortunetelling is a grave sin, no matter how you do it. This particular type of fortunetelling is necromancy (fortunetelling by consulting the dead), but all forms of fortunetelling are prohibited.
2. Saul didn't just say a prayer to Samuel asking for his intercession, he conjured up Samuel's spirit with the aid of a medium (the "witch of Endor"). Again, trying to conjure up spirits is gravely sinful. In fact, asking for a vision from God can be a sin against faith.

In short, OP, I think your position is more reasonable than that of many Protestants (well, I could say that on a lot of topics ;-)). But I don't think the story of Saul and Samuel is a good apologetic for it, because Saul is doing things that Catholicism would condemn categorically.

[Warlord David]

You are correct where the Word of God says You shall not make any graven images of God. Because a graven image would give us a false image of God and our relationship to him as our Father. Whether such images fail, in being able to provide us a fellowship with God. The graven images can not see, hear or speak, as it is written. As for graven images providing a guide to the Lord it is a very poor guide that the Catholic place there trust in. And I pray that the catholic will see the error of their ways and repent. Being a evangelical christians this is a non issue for me. It is as the Lord said: "They know not what they worship......."

[SoothingDave]

The graven images can not see, hear or speak, as it is written.

You need the Bible to tell you statues don't talk?

Is Jesus an Image of God?

SD

[Warlord David]

Is Jesus an Image of God?

Jesus is God. No image needs to apply.

You need the Bible to tell you statues don't talk?

With out the Word even you would not know the answer to that one.

[SoothingDave]

Jesus is God. No image needs to apply.

So you deny Hebrews 1:1-3?

With out the Word even you would not know the answer to that one.

What do you mean by "Word"?

SD

[Warlord David]

So you deny Hebrews 1:1-3? And the answer is no.

First the defintion of Image is reproduct. Jesus is not a reproduct. He is God.

You have a problem with understanding the Trinity.

[SoothingDave]

So you deny Hebrews 1:1-3?

And the answer is no.

It says that Jesus is the "express image" of God. Deal with it.

First the defintion of Image is reproduct. Jesus is not a reproduct. He is God.

"Reproduct" isn't a word. Do you mean "reproduction"?

Jesus is an "image" of God. That's what the Scripture says. There is more to the word used here, in Greek "ikon," than simply saying it means "reproduct."

If Jesus is not a "reproduct" and yet Hebrews says He is an "image," you must reconcile your statements.

You have a problem with understanding the Trinity.

LOL. No. I've been around the block a few times. It's always the Bible freelancers whose Trinitarian and Christological ideas are suspect. But thanks for the concern.

SD

[Warlord David]

The point is "express" image not "image" that is to make known by the "living Word" of God. John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.... And now that Jesus has been take up, we have no physcical image or graven image of him to follow, only his Living Word that is an "express" image of the only true living God, Jesus Christ.

And please not more insults. It unchristian. Thanks for asking.

[SoothingDave]

And now that Jesus has been take up, we have no physcical image or graven image of him to follow, only his Living Word that is an "express" image of the only true living God, Jesus Christ.

Who said we were to "follow" any image? Not I.

What do you think "express" means?

What does the "Living Word" mean?

And please not more insults. It unchristian. Thanks for asking.

Where did I insult you?

SD

[Campion]

And now that Jesus has been take up, we have no physcical image or graven image of him to follow

I don't know of anyone who "follows" an image. Do you?

The central truth of the Christian faith is that God took on human nature (and that implies a human body) to save his people. Do you deny that?

If you don't, then please consider that it means that God became visible. And if God became visible and took on visible human nature, it only makes sense that we ought to use all of the senses and faculties God gave us to affirm that truth. That includes making an image of that visible, enfleshed God, to remind us that that is exactly what happened for our salvation.

[Warlord David]

Who said we were to "follow" any image? Not I.

What do you think "express" means? I already told you.

What does the "Living Word" mean?

It means the spirit not the letter of the Word

[SoothingDave]

I already told you.

No, you didn't. But I'm sure you believe you did. Thanks, and have a good day.

SD

[Warlord David]

The central truth of the Christian faith is that God took on human nature (and that implies a human body) to save his people. Do you deny that?


I never did. And where did I imply such a thing?

[Warlord David]

I already told you.

No, you didn't. But I'm sure you believe you did. Thanks, and have a good day.

The meaning of the word express: is to make known, either in words or expresion on the face. Here it I means in words, such as the Living Word.

[SoothingDave]

"Express image" is the phrase. "Express" in this usage is an adjective. It means:

1. Definitely and explicitly stated: their express wish. See Synonyms at explicit.
2. Particular; specific

I fail to see how any way you define the word it means that Jesus is not an image of God. That's what the Scripture says.

SD

[maui_hawaii]

I'm not Catholic, but here is my 2 cents... It depends on how one defines 'graven image'...

That is not a blanket condemnation of any and all religious symbols. It is however saying one should not actually WORSHIP idols and statues and the like.

I am not Catholic but I don't think its really a problem because while its symbolic, its not the actual object of worship.

In the old old old Egyptian they had real idols that were worshipped in the place of God, rather than worshipping God.

If one has a symbol to remind one of religion, thats not bad, just so long as the symbol reminds one to worship what should be worshipped.

Any Catholics can correct me if they want.

[Warlord David]

According to my American Heritage dictionary the word express means: To make known or indicate, as by words ........ Which is the point Im am trying to make that the express image of God is found not, in icons or graven images of Jesus, to which this article first address, but is found in the Bible, the Living Word of God. Which is the spirit and truth of God, Jesus dwelling inside us. Which now our bodies are a temple to the living God. And Jesus lives with us.

I think we can agree on this.

[SoothingDave]

Look up "express" as an adjective. Like "the express written consent of Major League Baseball."

Which is the point Im am trying to make that the express image of God is found not, in icons or graven images of Jesus, to which this article first address, but is found in the Bible, the Living Word of God.

The Express image of God is not found in icons, I agree. It is found in Jesus, who is the Image of God and the Living Word of God.

I do not agree that the Bible is the Living Word of God. Jesus is.

In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then the Word became flesh, not paper and ink. You have demonstrated the danger that many "Bible only" types fall prey to: the confusion of the Bible with the Word.

SD