Posted on 03/04/2011 6:27:07 AM PST by dangus
I don't have to have it tucked away in my pocket - the answer to your question is basically right there, in the text of the commandment itself.
"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: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..." (Exodus 20:4-5)
The command pretty explicitly says that violation comes with making images of these things so as to worship them.
(You don't happen to have such a command, do you? Tucked away somewhere, that you'd be willing to share with us ignorant peasants? We'd like to be able to read it for ourselves, so we can obey God too, y'know?)
"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:11-14)
Actually, now that you mention it, there's a huge chunk of his beard missing in the middle of his chin. I think I always took it for visual noise, and/or a severe dimple. Indeed, many paintings seem to interpret this as a severe dimple.
The shroud. Notice the way the white parts of negative form sort of an "n" shape around a dark center of his chin? That must have hurt!
Much later painting, showing a deeply cleft beard, which is typical in paintings of Jesus.
Maybe so.
But the real question “Is this important?” Very interesting? Yes. But not something I would loose a lot of sleep over either way.
Yes, St. Luke painted. I referred to that in the original article, in fact. Although no paintings survive, the Eastern “Christ Pantocrator” icons are supposedly based on his painting.
Very important? I suppose not. I’ll settle for very interesting. :^D
The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments? [Ecumenical]
Was it the rev Jackson who said Jesus was black?.
bfl
>> The same thing applies. Nobody would have *thought* he was one, either. In fact, if it were thought He were a Nazarite, then why would they have said he was “a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners...”? <<
Did the Pharisees drink wine? Yes. So why be scandalized that a man drink wine? Because he was thought to be a Nazarite. Was he really a glutton? He’d fast 40 days at a time. He was so thin, that when stretched out on the cross, you could count all his bones. So why did they accuse him of gluttony? Because he was thought to be a Nazarite.
Methinks the image on the shroud of Turin was created by somebody using their own medieval contemporary ideas of what Jesus looked like - drawn, most likely, from the "much later paintings" for which you have provided us an example.
They go together. Either one cannot be taken by itself.
In fact, the question at issue is of the making of images, not of bowing down before them or worshipping them. I'm sure you and I are in perfect agreement that those who actually bow down before and worship images of Jesus are plainly guilty of idolatry. But that's not the question here.
Agree completely.
>> Uh, no. When people back then plucked a beard to humiliate someone, they pulled it out. They didn’t just give the guy a French Fork. <<
Now you’re just being silly. You really think the soldiers stood there and pulled out the entire beard? They were showing contempt, not grooming him.
No.....
As the context of the passage indicates, they were scandalised because He was a "friend of publicans and sinners." The Pharisees thought that no true Rabbi, no truly upright and religious person, would even hang out with the lowest members of society. Granted, the charge that He was gluttonous and a winebibber (i.e. a drunkard) was contrived, but the Pharisees didn't assume that He was a Nazarite. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that if they had thought He'd broken a Nazarite vow, they would have specifically said so, instead of being roundabout about it. Remember, they had no problem outrightly accusing Him of being both a blasphemer, and of being demon possessed.
Actually, yes, they would have removed all, or at least most of, the beard. Not just a little "n" on the chin that requires a lot of imagination to even see in the first place....
“Discuss the issues of this article on this thread” (from the RM)
It says don't make a graven image. Then it says don't bow down nor worship/serve graven images. Nowhere does it say, "Don't make a graven image that you plan to bow down and worship."
If you're driving down the road and see sign that says "Speed Limit 55" and underneath it says "No U-Turn", do you conclude that means you're not to make a U-turn going 55mph? That would be silly, wouldn't it?
No sillier, though, than saying, "Well it's okay to violate Part A of this commandment as long as you keep Part B."
Quite obviously your interpretation is simply wrong, since just a few chapters later, God commanded Israel to make a number of graven images, including two cherubim. Are you accusing God of being schizophrenic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.