No pictures of any created thing?

[MrEddie1611]

I've heard of this, but I've never actually ran into somebody that had that belief. 40 years ago my pastor did believe that any picture of Jesus was wrong, including the ones you might find in a children's Bible. He didn't like crosses, and he was also against nativity scenes like you would set up at Christmas. I don't run into that much anymore. I have a children's ministry, and to this day I still feel kind of nervous when I draw a picture of Jesus for one of my illustrations/object lessons.

Edited July 14, 2019 by MrEddie1611
Just adding another thought

[Jerry]

Well, don’t draw any pictures of Jesus then. It’s hard to be Biblically accurate when the Bible never physically describes Jesus.

People get used to compromises - the more they do so, they less it bothers them. But the Bible has not changed, even when others have. People are too afraid to rock the boat by going against popular opinion.

Jesus is God - and the Bible says we do not know what God looks like so don’t even make images of a man - Jesus in His human form is a man.

[MrEddie1611]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

Well, don’t draw any pictures of Jesus then. It’s hard to be Biblically accurate when the Bible never physically describes Jesus.

People get used to compromises - the more they do so, they less it bothers them. But the Bible has not changed, even when others have. People are too afraid to rock the boat by going against popular opinion.

Jesus is God - and the Bible says we do not know what God looks like so don’t even make images of a man - Jesus in His human form is a man.

Interesting.

No coloring books for young children with a line drawing of Jesus walking on water? Don't draw Jesus at the well or any other similar visual when telling the story of the woman at the well? Don't get me wrong, my favorite pastor held the same position. I myself did not hold that position, even back then, but while I was under his authority I believed that it was my responsibility to abide by his convictions as my pastor.

I guess my own personal  line in the sand would be not drawing anything that I thought would have any chance at all of being worshipped, or that might make others think that I was an idol worshipper. 

I disagree, though, with the idea that what I'm doing today is compromise... To me that would imply doing something that I suspected was not quite right for the sake of reaching more people. I feel that we're talking about a simple disagreement, not compromise. Maybe it sounded that way because I said I was nervous... But I'm only nervous because I knew so many people for so long that I might offend with this kind of object lesson or illustration. Nervous probably wasn't even the right word. 

By the same token, my pastor also believed that it was wrong to shop at a grocery store (or any store of any kind for that matter) that sold alcohol or cigarettes. He had his reasons, but that doesn't mean that I'm compromising today when I walk in to Krogers.

I guess we've kind of wandered off the thread here...

Edited July 14, 2019 by MrEddie1611
Grammar. Hey, this is my first day being on any discussion bored at all. Still learning!

[Jerry]

Not shopping in a store that sold cigarettes or alcohol is a personal conviction if you will, perhaps based on some Bible principles. Not drawing pictures of Jesus is a Bible COMMAND. There is a big difference between the two.

[No Nicolaitans]

16 hours ago, Jerry said:

It’s hard to be Biblically accurate when the Bible never physically describes Jesus.

Well...actually the Bible does give us somewhat of a physical description...

Revelation 1...

 13  And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

 14  His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

 15  And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

 16  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

 17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

 18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

I have to admit...I've never seen a picture drawn, a statue sculpted, or a painting rendered that depicts the Lord Jesus Christ with snow-white hair.

[Jerry]

And it is obvious from the context that the whole description is symbolic - all the symbols can be traced throughout the rest of the Bible.

[Corinne]

Drawing pictures of God is completely disrespectful, to me it shows less reverence when people claim to have this liberty. It's a guaranteed false/inaccurate image of Him, so I'm not sure why people bother with trying to guess his physical appearance.

 

As for graven images, I received angel sculptures as gifts plenty of time, but I didn't feel comfortable in keeping them. They were naked women or babies with wings, this also represents a mocking of celestial creatures since we aren't aware how angels look, only that they are referred to as masculine.

 

[DaveW]

Can I point out that the title of this thread is very specifically "No pictures of any created thing?"

I understand the point of clarifying that no image of God is to be made, but unless you are suggesting that God is a created thing, this side of the discussion is off topic and in fact muddying the waters of this topic.

If someone later comes along looking g for discussion about THE TOPIC they will be quickly drawn away from the topic.

Start another thread to discuss images of God..... PLEASE!

[Corinne]

Oh, sorry. Got caught up in some posts that mentioned pictures of God.

I agree with you, that there's nothing wrong with having pictures of any created thing as long as people don't worship it.

[Bro. West]

Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: Num 33:52
This maybe the verse used to reach this laughable doctrine. If this comes up to you, ask the person if he has a TV which shows all kind of creation. Perhaps his driver license Oh! well not all the nuts are in the nut house. Why Christian come up these things bewilders me. It like the pastor I know who teaches the Earth is flat. In the past Christians were going nuts over w2k. These things do not help the cause of Christ the gospel. It tell the world that we are NUTS.

[Jerry]

Bro West, you quoted the Bible, then you refer to Christians attempting to apply it as being nuts. Not a good position to take. What would be better is to clarify where they were wrong, and show they were wrong in their interpretation or understanding of this passage.

The context is referring to the Canaanites and their gods. The Israelites were to destroy the images, the pictures - basically any representation of those gods.

For the sake of this thread, I noticed a couple of years ago that I never responded to the one question asked. Yes, I have in the past come across a few professing believers that held to this position. I do not know where they got this view - but typically they were unsound individuals.

Taking all the passages together, the sum of it all is: we are forbidden by God's Word to make any pictures or representations of God Himself (which would include pictures of Jesus, of the Holy Spirit, of the Father), nor make or have any representations of false gods. That means I can't keep the little Buddha statue in my house, can't keep that little african idol the missionary brought when he came to visit, that picture of Romans gods someone gave me (no, no one gave me one, just making a point).

However, God and His Word are not against pictures or representations of regular animals, etc. as long as they are not gods - whether they are worshipped personally by anyone you know or not. That means native art goes out the window - because the specific art style is to portray the gods and idols of their culture.

Doodling in your backyard and drawing a picture of the raven on your fence is not a sin. Drawing a picture of the Great Raven or making a Sunday school pic of Jesus for your kids to colour is a sin. Putting a picture on a wall in your house of Mary holding baby Jesus is idolatry, even if you don't worship it - people around the world do, and God forbids any physical representation of the true God (ie. any of the three members of the Trinity) or any false gods.

Here is an interesting passage to apply to missionaries and others that think it is okay to keep idols around even if we don't worship them:

Deuteronomy 7:25-26 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

[Bro. West]

 I know the context of the verse and to whom it was written. But this is not to say the verse can not be misapplied. I agree with you on images. Here in Chicago land and Northwest Indiana I see a lot of Mary in the bath tub on front lawns. I can smell the brimstone it is out of hell. You might as well post a sign saying going to hell.

[BrotherTony]

44 minutes ago, Bro. West said:

 I know the context of the verse and to whom it was written. But this is not to say the verse can not be misapplied. I agree with you on images. Here in Chicago land and Northwest Indiana I see a lot of Mary in the bath tub on front lawns. I can smell the brimstone it is out of hell. You might as well post a sign saying going to hell.

Chicago land, eh? I was raised in the Pekin/Peoria are and went to Bible college in E. Peoria, IL starting in 1980. Then to Maranatha in Watertown, WI in 1982. 

[Bro. West]

I was born and raised in Chisago and good Tennessee. Smart move moving to Tennessee.

However I am amazed at the lunacy out there that Christians fall in to. This picture thing is just one of many. And there are so many verse taken out of context and applied to the body of Christ from the O.T. I mean I can prove using Scripture that you need to wear a bonnet for after all are you not of the royal priest hood according to Peter, so dress like one-----bonnet and all. i will close for I have to starch my bonnet.

[Jerry]

Bro West, I understand you mock those who do not understand this verse - YET as far as I can tell, you have not actually told us what it really means. Mocking someone for a wrong understanding is not helpful if you do not know or cannot teach what the right understanding is.

This verse is in the Bible. What is it teaching and how is it applicable today? Okay, it's not saying we are forbidden to make any pictures. This verse is not presented in a vacuum - what IS it saying?

You mentioned certain priestly garments. How do we know it doesn't apply to us today? Because certain passages teach that the ceremonial aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ and therefore done away with. It is not simply an issue of "Oh this is OT, therefore does not apply," and people are silly for applying it - but why doesn't it apply? There are people that probably visit here at times that do not know the reasons why. Mocking someone striving to apply certain parts of the Bible is not helpful - nor a godly attitude. Also, that in a way makes you a mocker of God as He was the one who made that law in the first place. Yes, for a reason and it has been fulfilled - but you are on shaky ground when you start mocking Scripture.