 |
| 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/30/2004 2:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
BTH, Selah, what does your picture of God look like?
Oh boy... are you sure you want to know?
Actually, I relate to a variety of "neurological representations" of God. I think it is important to understand that I am not trying to image God to be something that is theologically correct. Rather, I am simply NOTICING the way I re-present God in our relationship in a specific context. WE ALL DO THIS - though we may not realize it. I believe theological truths form the representation that emerges, but they don't dictate the details. Does that make sense?
For instance, SINCE the Bible says I am a friend of Christ, one picture I have is of a (dark skinned ;) Jesus who hangs out with me. This is the Jesus I talk to continually. He looks like a hippie. He has a headband. He is cooler than the fonze. He is laid back and not shaken by the things of this world. In my car, He puts His seat back and His foot up on the dash. When we walk, we hold hands. He might even put His arm around me or pat me on the back. We laugh together too. Sometimes we skip...
oh my, I'm starting to feel the pressure  ... don't lock me up!
The other main image I experience happens during worship. In this image I see Him up high. I have a vague representation of a throne and a glassy sea...and lots of bright light. It is very warm and I feel a breeze coming off the sea. It smells like the beach. I have a sense of gratitude that cannot be expressed in words. When I am engaged in worship I usually see myself associated (through my eyes) tossing iridescent, opal-like, glistening confetti up toward the throne continually...
I also have a Precious image
A very grieved-weeping image
A gut wrenching, doubled over in pain image
An I AM image
A Dad image
A Lamb image
A Shepherd image
A Spouse image
and on and on.....
ok, hows that? Remember, YOU ASKED
Blessings and love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
 |
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 4/30/2004 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Selahquote:
Actually, I relate to a variety of "neurological representations" of God. I think it is important to understand that I am not trying to image God to be something that is theologically correct. Rather, I am simply NOTICING the way I re-present God in our relationship in a specific context. WE ALL DO THIS - though we may not realize it. I believe theological truths form the representation that emerges, but they don't dictate the details. Does that make sense?
Makes total sense. Nicely put too.[
Thank you for sharing how you represent God! I like the hippie image. I never pictured him that way but when I did (as I read your image) it fit. God is totally cool. I often picture him in the car with me and we talk. Actually, I talk and he gently and patiently listens. When I get anxious to go somewhere... I picture Jesus walking with me with his arm around me or holding my hand too. God's totally cool!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 4/30/2004 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Borg and Spenlake,
I would like to share a personal testimony with you. With your caution toward imaging I thought this might help you to understand how imaging God can help a person draw closer to God.
I always attended church and listened to sermons. I read the bible. I "tried" to be a Christian. Yet, something was missing. I knew God was Almighty but I didn't personally know this God.
Then, one day someone shared with me this imaging exercise of picturing Jesus and me in one of my favorite places. This took a little work to do but when I was finally able to do this I then knew that this Almighty God was my personal friend. For the first time I experienced my walk instead of trying to "do" my walk.
Yes, we must walk humbly with our God but we must also trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us if we follow and trust.
Thank you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 4/30/2004 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I also have a Precious image
A very grieved-weeping image
A gut wrenching, doubled over in pain image
An I AM image
A Dad image
A Lamb image
A Shepherd image
A Spouse image
and on and on.....
A Moderator image perhaps? 
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2004 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey here's the article. It somehow got erased and I thought some might enjoy reading it. It's taken from apuritansmind.com the author is Matthew McMahon.
Mel Gibson’s Passion Movie -
Why Modern Evangelicals Don’t Have A Problem With Nestorius
By C. Matthew McMahon
Unless you have been living under a rock, it is impossible to miss the stir in the Christian community surrounding the movie “The Passion of the Christ” by Mel Gibson. There have been many evangelical leaders that have complimented Mr. Gibson on making this movie, and hearing from God to portray Christ in a visual manner. It is not the intention of this article to smear these men and women in their inept theological statements about the movie, rather, it is plea for them to repent of their sin in violating the commandments of God, along with all others who have seen the movie who have departed from historical orthodox tracing back over 1600 years. All of this is important because Evangelicals are lining up by the millions to see it, and it earned over 20 million dollars at the box office on its first weekend. It is a modern religious phenomenon, and it is grieving God.
The following short article is directed to the evangelical community at large. For the Reformed Christian, this movie is simply another abomination in the sight of God in violating not only Holy Scripture (since the movie was not taken from a biblical account alone, but also in part from the 19th century diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, "The Mystical City of God" by St. Mary of Agreda) but also the first half of the second commandment which reads, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…” (Exodus 20:4) Not only are evangelicals not keen enough to determine the importance behind changing the Scripture, or violating the second commandment which is reiterated all through the Old and the New Testaments, but they also seem to have a grave problem with their Christology (i.e. their conceptions of the Biblical doctrines that answer the question - “Who is Jesus?”). Evangelicals are not simply trampling on the historical orthodoxy of the Protestant Church when they see a movie like this that attempts to portray, in visual form, the man Christ, but they are precisely trampling on the last two-thousand years of Christology. They have become Nestorians without even realizing it.
Solid biblical arguments abound in terms of not changing the Scriptural data, and not violating the second commandment. In order to appease those staunch Reformed brethren who may want an excursus on both those issues, touching on them may be appropriate for a paragraph or two, but that is not the necessary focus of this article, as the reader will see. Some comments, though, will be of help by way of a refresher.
In terms of changing the data of the Bible, or taking liberty in a historical narrative, this is obviously sin. Men ought not to take liberty in placing anything in Christ’s mouth except repeating back to others what Christ actually did say based on the biographical accounts and theological formulations of the biblical record. God warns us, “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. (Deut. 12:32).” There are hundreds of Scriptures through the Word of God that demonstrate that God is to be quoted and not embellished. Secondly, historical Protestantism sees it as sin to violate the second commandment (and rightly so) that has always included the visual depictions of Christ in painted form, or even in the imaginations of men’s minds. The Westminster Confession of Faith in the Larger Catechism sets this forth plainly, “Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making of any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (Num. 15:39; Deut. 13:6-8; Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16; I Kings 11:33; 12:33; Deut. 12:30-32; Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17; Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25; Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8; 9. Exod. 32:5; Exod. 32:8; I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11; Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23; Mal. 1:7-8, 14; Deut. 4:2; Psa. 106:39; Matt. 15:9; I Peter 1:18; Jer. 44:17; Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14; I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21; Acts 8:18; Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8; Exod. 4:24-26; Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13; Matt. 23:13; Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16.)” The Heidelberg Catechism, says, “Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment? A96: That we in no way make any image of God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word. (Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts 17:29; I Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24). Q97: May we not make any image at all? A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them. (Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4; John 1:18). Q98: But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people? A98: No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols, but by the lively preaching of His Word. (Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-19; II Peter 1:19; II Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 10:17).” The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter IV, Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints, says, “Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16). Images of Saints. And since the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here on earth, rejected all worship of themselves (Acts 3:12f.; 14:11ff.; Rev. 14:7; 22:9) and condemned images, shall anyone find it likely that the heavenly saints and angels are pleased with their own images before which men kneel, uncover their heads, and bestow other honors? But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15) - not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images. The Scriptures of the Laity. Furthermore, wherever we turn our eyes, we see the living and true creatures of God which, if they be observed, as is proper, make a much more vivid impression on the beholders than all the images or vain, motionless, feeble and dead pictures made by men, of which the prophet truly said: They have eyes, but do not see (Psa. 115:5). Lactantius. Therefore we approved the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says: "Undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image." Epiphanius and Augustine. We also assert that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did right when, finding on the doors of a church a veil on which was painted a picture supposedly of Christ or some saint, he ripped it down and took it away, because to see a picture of a man hanging in the Church of Christ was contrary to the authority of Scripture. Wherefore he charged that from henceforth no such veils, which were contrary to our religion, should be hung in the Church of Christ, and that rather such questionable things, unworthy of the Church of Christ and the faithful people, should be removed. Moreover, we approve of this opinion of St. Augustine concerning true religion: "Let not the worship of the works of men be a religion for us. For the artists themselves who make such things are better; yet we ought not to worship them" (De Vera Religione, cap. 55).”
Now, for those who are Reformed, they are deeply aware of such confessions, and desire to uphold them, believing them to be solid biblical expositions of the Word of God. For those who are Reformed in name only, and desire to go to such events as “The Passion” or passion plays in general, they find ways to justify their beliefs, which will be observed in a moment. So to some, the information above is old hat that should be kept standing strong. To others it is theological drivel that does not matter in today’s society.
The Bible is very plain in terms of the Christians response to abhorring idols, and to uphold the proper worship of God. Evangelicals seem to have a tough time defining worship, which is simply having high thoughts about God. Christians worship is having high thoughts about God only when such worship is based on spirit and truth – something we think about and then have a reaction to (John 4:24). Christians think about Christ’s words, “I lay my life down for the sheep” and they have a positive reaction to it – they feel comforted. To utilize idolatry in having elevated thoughts about God is to engage in worship that is unsubstantiated and forbidden by God in the Scriptures. Deut. 4:11-19 states, “Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness. "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice. "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess. " Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, "the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, "the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth. "And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage. "But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be His people, an inheritance, as you are this day.” Simple exegesis on the nature and attributes of God from this passage alone should silence the gainsayer on using idols or visual depictions of God in any form of worship, or high thoughts. Any thought a Christian may have about God is considered worship. To use idolatry as a means to have higher thoughts about God blatantly violates the second commandment. In the New Testament this is equally plain, as John says, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen (1 John 5:21).” That statement is not rocket science. Christians are to keep themselves from idols of all kinds and all shapes, whether they are material, visual depictions of God, or immaterial idols like greed, power or fame. When Paul demonstrates the wickedness of a heart that does not follow God, he emphasizes the idolatry of such people in Romans 1:22-23, “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” In other words, wicked men are attracted to idolatry, but Christians should be repelled by it. Are they?
Idolatry should cause Christians to run in the opposite direction. Christians should be as provoked as Paul was in his spirit when he entered Athens in terms of “idolatry” of any kind, “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols (Acts 17:16).” What does the average Christian think of the dove symbol on the back of their car, or pictures of Jesus in the local bookstore? Evangelicals today are given over to idols. They have doves and fish on the back of their cars, they have pictures of Jesus on posters and framed art, they wear “Christian” T-shirts that depict the crucifixion, and teach their children from “illustrated bibles” because it makes life easier with pictures of Jesus for the children to see. These are idols. Why? This is where we come to the focus of this article.
“The Passion” movie, as other movies have done, depicts the person of Christ in his human nature. When Christians are faced with going to such events, they justify their attendance by saying, “Jesus was a man. Since he was a man, and we know what men look like, it is not wrong for us to go and see them depict the human side of the person of Christ. It is not a violation of the commandment. The commandment teaches us not to violate it by making images of God, which we cannot do because he is invisble and omnipresent. They are depicting a man in that movie.” They tread on thin ice when they say, “They are depicting a man in the movie,” because Christ was God. They begin their justification by making heretical statements, and the downward spiral just keeps going. Their immediate reaction is “But Jesus was human too.” This is the way they justify going to a Roman Catholic depiction of a twisted Gospel message. Is it a surprise, then, that the Passion Movie made 20 million dollars at the box office on opening weekend? Why would they bother? Why do they need to go? What prompts them to think the way they do?
The reason Evangelicals are going to see “The Passion” movie is because they are Nestorians and they do not even know it. Their Christology is deviant, and they are not thinking about one of the most important doctrines in the Christian faith. It is enough to say that changing the Scriptures, or violating the second commandment is reason enough not to go to see movies like this, or buy paintings of “Jesus.” However, the real reason that lies behind the justification of modern evangelicals in this way surrounds their very poor theology on the person of Jesus Christ. Their theology is lacking in certain areas that cause them to fall into Nestorianism (a very grave heresy) without realizing they are doing so because they do not know how to think critically about important doctrines.
First, who is Nestorius? Nestorius was born at Germanicia, in Syria Euphoratensis around 381 A.D. He died in the Thebaid, Egypt in 452. He was living as a priest and monk in the monastery of Euprepius when he was chosen by the Emperor Theodosius II to be Patriarch of Constantinople in succession to Sisinnius. He was consecrated to the post in April of 428. In the early part of 429 Nestorius preached the first of his "famous" sermons against the word Theotokos (Mary as "God bearer"), and detailed his Antiochian doctrine of the Incarnation. Eusebius, a layman, and two priests of the city, Philip and Proclus, preached against Nestorius. This caused a great stir at Constantinople. Celestine condemned the doctrine immediately. Nestorius had arranged with the emperor in the summer of 430 for the assembling of a council. However, at the council Nestorius was condemned as an arch-heretic.
Secondly, what did Nestorius believe? Nestorius was a disciple of the school of Antioch, and his Christology was essentially that of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. They taught in opposition to the Arians, who taught that in the Incarnation the Son of God assumed a human body in which His Divine Nature took the place of the soul, and to the followers of Apollinarius of Laodicea, who held that the Divine Nature supplied the functions of the higher or intellectual soul. The Antiochenes insisted upon the completeness of the humanity which the Word assumed meaning that the human nature must have a person. That meant that Christ was already a complete person before the Son of God ever joined Himself to that “other person.” This would mean that there were two persons and two natures which unwinds the entire doctrine of the incarnation and reduces it to some pagan mystery religion. Unfortunately, they represented this human nature as a complete man, and represented the Incarnation as the assumption of a man by the Word. It is not surprising to find that Diodorus admitted “two Sons”, and that Theodore practically made “two Christs.” Nestorius followed them in deeming the human person and the divine person as joined. “The Word and the Man are to be worshipped together,” say Nestorius, and he means that, “Through Him that bears I worship Him Who is borne.” This language is heretical. Nestorius believed that Jesus has two distinct natures that were inhabited by two distinct persons. This made Jesus a God-bearer, but not the God-man. In Nestorius’ mind, The Son of God attached Himself to a whole other man that was already self-independent. To say this is to damage the entire meaning behind the Word becoming flesh. Instead, this asserts that the Word made a union with a man that “in some way” became divine as a result of the union. But this would not make much sense since Adam’s nature would have affected Christ, then, as a regular human being, and that the Divine Son would have attached Himself to a son of Adam, instead of being the Second Adam, without sin, and perfect. It is the personality of the Son of God inhabiting the man Christ as a person that makes Him the Christ of the Bible.
In dealing with current evangelicals, why is Nestorius brought up and why does this writer accuse them of holding to the Nestorian doctrine? It is rather simple. If an Evangelical were asked, “Should we make a golden calf as a representation of God and look at it as a symbol of God” they would undoubtedly say “of course not.” They would insist, “We ought to have no images at all of God. That is what the second commandment says.” But when they apply that command not to have images of God in terms of seeing Jesus Christ, they make a conscious separation between the humanity and divinity of Christ. On the movie screen the man Jesus Christ is being portrayed, and it has nothing to do with the invisible God of heaven who dwells in unapproachable light. That immortal, invisible, God in heaven is not what is being portrayed frame by frame. They say that they are simply looking at historical facts about Jesus Christ the man. Jesus was human after all, right?
If one really takes the time to think through that, they will see it for the nonsense it is. It is Nestorianism all over again, just repackaged by Hollywood, and believed by ignorant Evangelicals who are not taking the time to study basic Christian doctrine. The ideas surrounding the Greek term prosopon (person) is what is giving Evangelicals the real trouble. For some reason people believe they can look at the humanity of Christ while separating the divinity of Christ’s personality from him – an impossibility. Evangelicals are not stupid, for they do not believe James Caviezel, the actor who is portraying Jesus Christ in the movie, has anything divine about him. Rather, the Evangelical who watches the movie is making that mental conception and leap (really a form of worship, “high thoughts” of God) about what they are seeing on the screen and what they understand about the divinity of the Son of God from the Bible. So they believe that they are safe in separating the two natures of Christ and portraying the human person and nature on the screen, and then making the mental leap to remind themselves that Jesus is divine as well. So in reality, they engage in a Christological heresy for a time that has been condemned by the church for 1600 years in order to watch a movie about Christ’s humanity separated from His divinity!
The average Evangelical (and his pastor) needs to unravel his thinking. He is mixed up. He does not have his Christology down biblically. If he did, he would see that depicting any image of Christ, or seeing Jesus in any form today, is sin. It is a violation of the second commandment.
Simply, Jesus Christ is the God-man. He is not simply God. He is not simply man. He is both at once inseparably joined. His natures are attached but distinct. They are not mixed. He is hypostatically joined in those two natures. The divine nature “assumed” the human nature (i.e. attached the human nature to Himself). The divine nature never gave up being divine when it attached to the human nature, and the human nature was not swallowed up by the divine nature. They remained joined, but separate natures. Now here is the tricky part. The human nature does not contain a human person. If Christ was a human person and human nature attached to a divine person (The Son of God) and a divine nature, He would become schizophrenic. Rather, He is one person, the divine Son of God, that has attached to Himself a human nature. He is one person with two distinct natures. The second person of the Godhead is the animator or personality of the human Jesus. To say that Jesus has a human person and a divine person is to say the same thing that Nestorius said, and by which he was condemned as a heretic. Christ is one person, with two natures. (Repeat and memorize that!) Here is an official statement against the Nestorian heresy that states this: Christ is “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ (The Chalcedonian Creed, 451 A.D.).” Keep that clear: two natures, one person.
It is important that this is tangible to the reader. How does this change the reality that the portrayal on the movie screen is really a violation of the second commandment to visualize the eternal God when His human nature is being portrayed? It is impossible that the divine nature be separated from the human nature, and that the divine person be separated from the human nature. It is the divine personality of the Son that gives personality to the human nature. Certainly in this way the human nature makes limitations on knowledge, feelings and the like. Even though the Son of God in his divine nature is everywhere present, Christ in His human nature is present in one place at one time. To explain in terms of a simple illustration would be helpful. A person may take their hand and dial the phone. They press buttons for a certain number, and they pick up the receiver and talk to the party on the other end. This person is able to do it unrestricted and easily. Now imagine that they put on one of those giant fluffy mittens that are worn when the weather drops forty degrees below zero. The hand is encased in the mitten. The mitten, if left to itself does absolutely nothing. But once the hand fills the mitten, it can move it around. The hand has not changed and the mitten has not changed. The mitten and hand are simply joined in the union. The hand has not ceased to be a hand at all. It simply animates the mitten. When the hand wearing the mitten tries to dial the push button phone, it has quite a bit of trouble. It’s the same hand, but it simply uses another vehicle to accomplish a task. It makes dialing the phone hard, but that does not mean the hand itself is somehow changed. In the same way the human nature is animated by the divine personality. The divine person does not change, it simply fills the human nature to its capacity and works with it as best He can. This divine Son, then, becomes the human personality of the Christ, and animates the human nature. Thus, to say that the human nature could be depicted in ANY WAY apart from the eternal, invisible, immortal nature of the divine Godhead, is to make a serious Christological blunder. Christ is the God-man and His natures cannot be separated at all or for any reason. Once the artist’s brush attempts to depict Christ, he has immediately debased the personality of the Son of God. He cannot in any way, attempt to capture any aspect of the divine person. Paintings, pictures, posters or movies will never be able to depict the Christ. God is wiser than all, and He has determined to accommodate to our understanding through the Word of God and the sacraments alone. There is no other objective way of depicting the personality of the Son than in the Word and sacraments.
This Christological idea is exactly what Evangelicals are having a problem with, or simply not thinking about at all. If they did think through this, they would immediately abandon the movie theater and the Christian bookstores that tote the graven images of God. Will they now think such things are repugnant? Or with them succumb to the heresy?
Thinking through all that was not very hard and was hopefully clear. But now, with this basic information, Evangelicals need to straighten out their theology. They need to rethink their Christology and rescue it from the ignorance of Nestorius. Nestorius has come back from the dead, again, and Evangelicals are eating up his theology as if it was sound orthodoxy. Is ignorance bliss? Not in God’s eyes. The only way they can self-justify breaking the commandments of God in visually depicting Christ in any way whatsoever is to become part-time Nestorians. That is exactly what well-meaning Christians are when they succumb to this kind of sly devilish twist in their Christological ideas. They need to repent, seek the forgiveness of God and reject such things in the future as abominable sins. God is pleased when Christians keep themselves from idols. Amen.
Blessings,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/30/2004 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
If one really takes the time to think through that, they will see it for the nonsense it is. It is Nestorianism all over again, just repackaged by Hollywood, and believed by ignorant Evangelicals who are not taking the time to study basic Christian doctrine. The ideas surrounding the Greek term prosopon (person) is what is giving Evangelicals the real trouble. For some reason people believe they can look at the humanity of Christ while separating the divinity of Christ’s personality from him – an impossibility. Evangelicals are not stupid, for they do not believe James Caviezel, the actor who is portraying Jesus Christ in the movie, has anything divine about him. Rather, the Evangelical who watches the movie is making that mental conception and leap (really a form of worship, “high thoughts” of God) about what they are seeing on the screen and what they understand about the divinity of the Son of God from the Bible. So they believe that they are safe in separating the two natures of Christ and portraying the human person and nature on the screen, and then making the mental leap to remind themselves that Jesus is divine as well. So in reality, they engage in a Christological heresy for a time that has been condemned by the church for 1600 years in order to watch a movie about Christ’s humanity separated from His divinity!
While I was not a big fan of Gibson's portrayal of the Passion, I am also not so stupid as to miss this McMahon's guys' begging of the question (a movie portaying Christ equals idolatry) and assuming that which has not been proven--I have no doubt that evangelicals are perfectly aware of the fact that it's just an actor up there on the screen, not Deity, and not "Christ's humanity," either. To be consistent, McMahon would have to rule out any and all movies and plays of any kind.
McMahon also misstates Nestorianism grossly, only to suit his bias.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 4/30/2004 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Borgquote:
But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15) - not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images. The Scriptures of the Laity. Furthermore, wherever we turn our eyes, we see the living and true creatures of God which, if they be observed, as is proper, make a much more vivid impression on the beholders than all the images or vain, motionless, feeble and dead pictures made by men, of which the prophet truly said: They have eyes, but do not see (Psa. 115:5).
Jesus painted pictures constantly through storytelling. Jesus used the imagination to teach his followers. God uses images to speak to us and encourages us to remember these images such as with the rainbow, the body and blood of Christ. God used metaphors to explain and paint an image such as calling Peter the rock. I simply don't understand what the issue is when God himself used images throughout the bible. God created us as we are and gave us our imagination. Trying to grasp and experience God with ALL of ourselves is NOT idolatry.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2004 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | John, thanks for the reply. McMahon would say that all pictures, movies, plays, etc that represent Jesus are wrong; he has no problem going to that extent. Regarding God giving us things to remember Him, those were God instituted images as He desired. We as sinful mere human beings have no right to attempt to picture God in any way that God has not prescribed for us. Concerning your idea about modern evangelicals realizing that it's an actor, yes i think they do. But perhaps they ignorantly step into the line of idolatry by picturing this actor in their heads whenever they think of Jesus. Heavens knows this is what happend to me after I saw the Jesus Film.
Grace Alone,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/30/2004 8:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | EGAD! No more Veggie Tales for me! How dare them make an idol and change the scriptures! For shame!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/30/2004 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | "We as sinful mere humans beings have no right..." Borg, give it a rest! You certainly don't speak for the rest of us humans and certainly not for me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/30/2004 8:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
BTH, Selah, what does your picture of God look like?
Oh boy... are you sure you want to know?
Actually, I relate to a variety of "neurological representations" of God. I think it is important to understand that I am not trying to image God to be something that is theologically correct. Rather, I am simply NOTICING the way I re-present God in our relationship in a specific context. WE ALL DO THIS - though we may not realize it. I believe theological truths form the representation that emerges, but they don't dictate the details. Does that make sense?
For instance, SINCE the Bible says I am a friend of Christ, one picture I have is of a (dark skinned ;) Jesus who hangs out with me. This is the Jesus I talk to continually. He looks like a hippie. He has a headband. He is cooler than the fonze. He is laid back and not shaken by the things of this world. In my car, He puts His seat back and His foot up on the dash. When we walk, we hold hands. He might even put His arm around me or pat me on the back. We laugh together too. Sometimes we skip...
oh my, I'm starting to feel the pressure ... don't lock me up!
The other main image I experience happens during worship. In this image I see Him up high. I have a vague representation of a throne and a glassy sea...and lots of bright light. It is very warm and I feel a breeze coming off the sea. It smells like the beach. I have a sense of gratitude that cannot be expressed in words. When I am engaged in worship I usually see myself associated (through my eyes) tossing iridescent, opal-like, glistening confetti up toward the throne continually...
I also have a Precious image
A very grieved-weeping image
A gut wrenching, doubled over in pain image
An I AM image
A Dad image
A Lamb image
A Shepherd image
A Spouse image
and on and on.....
ok, hows that? Remember, YOU ASKED
Blessings and love,
selah
Selah,
What I find so very beautiful about your picture of God is the intimacy of your relationship with the Father. He said that He no longer calls us slaves, but friends. I love how you describe your friendship with Him. He is all those things you described...well I never thought of Him being a hippie, but if the sandal fits...
God Bless and thanks for having the courage to share such an intimate and wonderful relationship!
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/30/2004 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Borg,
I'm curious, does your church display a cross?
Peace,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/30/2004 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
John, thanks for the reply. McMahon would say that all pictures, movies, plays, etc that represent Jesus are wrong; he has no problem going to that extent. Regarding God giving us things to remember Him, those were God instituted images as He desired. We as sinful mere human beings have no right to attempt to picture God in any way that God has not prescribed for us. Concerning your idea about modern evangelicals realizing that it's an actor, yes i think they do. But perhaps they ignorantly step into the line of idolatry by picturing this actor in their heads whenever they think of Jesus. Heavens knows this is what happend to me after I saw the Jesus Film.
Grace Alone,
Borg
Borg,
It is undeniable that images have an affect on our mind, a profound one at times and that is why God created us with the minds that we have - with imagination as well as cognitive reasoning ability, memory... And, that is why it is important that He Himself used images to help us to understand Him and understand what the Father is doing in the Kingdom...even the Kingdom is full of images (the gates of hell, the keys to the Kingdom, the Kingdom of heaven and earth...) The Bible is full of images because we relate to images - to things that are concrete and tangible, not abstract. If someone is going to idolize the actor, perhaps they already have a problem with idolatry. The question should rather be - what good has this image of Christ in the Passion done for the Kingdom, now and eternal? It helps when faced with conflict to refocus on what is of eternal significance. Nothing that we do for Christ will be without some aspects of our flesh in it. He knows that. John the Baptist knew it. Moses knew it. David knew it. The great Apostle Paul knew it. The challenge is to "die daily" so that we can truly walk "in the light as He is in the light" ... then we won't go too far off course.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/30/2004 10:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
...where the heck does the Bible ever tell us that we are worthwhile people...
Borg
Borg,
Hi!
I'm wondering if you would do me a favor and look up these verses - John 17:20-26? I am completely willing to listen to your interpretation afterward. The way I read it, it sounds like Jesus is talking about how very much He values people and how they are totally worthwhile in His sight. If you read it differently, would you let me know?
quote:
holy enough to declare how the Almighty God can be worshiped? You can be left with "much-of-man" philosophy; but that is nowhere in Scripture! The Bible is about glorifying God not man. Any perversion from that is not Biblical theology.
Also, can I ask you to help me understand how YOU worship Almighty God? I think this would be the most helpful way to get your point across. Some of us need to hear concrete examples of how it can be done differently, ya know? Personally, I'm very open. If you can show me how you do it, I'm not against listening to your theology that supports it.
Thanks,
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/30/2004 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/30/2004 10:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2004 5:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't mean this as a nonsequitor (sp?). It is my prime thoughts on the subject. If you'l let me share them.
Rather than being with a "picture" I think that one does well to begin with a Prayer.
How we pray, and What we pray give our eyes vision.
How revolutionary was it for Jesus to teach us to pray "Our Father..." (Abba)? That changed everything.
Further, in the days of the OT, and continuing in Christian liturgy (Lutheran, Anglican, RCC, EO, etc.) is the tradition of linking certain Psalms together, where they 'condition' one another: which means that how one sets you up shapes how you are afftected by the others, etc. The "Psalms of Accent" is an example. And in Christian liturgy certain Psalms have been adopted--because they do such a good job--for use as introductions to servieces at various times of the day, or week, or year. Lots of Protestant and Evangelicals now are increasingly using the Common Lectionary. (Available online in a three year cycle.)The Psalms prepare us for what happens next. Its the pregame show that gets us all on the same page wo that together we can constitute the Body of Christ. (I'll post some of them iv asked.)
Prayer devices like A-C-T-S by virtue of their structure also teach us -- "give us a picture" -- of God. And the whole order of the Lord's Prayer EXCLUDES the possibility of adopting certain stances regarding God.
Psalms and Prayers provide a PRIMARY source of our image of God!
Liturgy does too. Liturgy BEGINS with the Trinity and ENDS with the Incarnation and Cross. The Communion liturugy BEGINS with the declaration that God is among us in the Body: "Blessed be the Kingdom..." and ENDS with the Body being sent out into the world to be a blessing. And its center is John 3:16.
Liturgy is also a PRIMARY source of our image of God. Psalms, prayers, worship (liturgy) are where we encounter God.
Scripture is too. But remember, scripture is for our building up. It is in the USE of Scripture by the leading of the Holy Spirit (not as an encyclopeia to study God as if he was a object) -- the working of both the Word and Spirit together, renewing our hearts and minds in Jesus Christ, as a spiritual sacrifice, THERE is the place of scripture. Word and Spirit revealing the Love of the Father in our hearts and relations.
More than any icon, WE are called to be image-bearers, bearers also of his "likeness" -- Love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2004 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | You can read and see the progression, as one part of our reconstitution prepares us for the next. (That sense of constructive flow is something we realised in our '70's/80's Charismtatic church in MN.)
BTW -- common to all liturgical churches (Lutheran, UCC, Anglican, RCC, EO, etc.) are these two services. You can see them in the back of their hymnals:
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Vespers.html
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Matins.html
quote:
The morning service of the Church is called Matins. It opens with the reading of six morning psalms and the intoning of the Great Litany. After this, verses of Psalm 118 are sung:
God is the Lord and has revealed himself unto us.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
And the earlier service is this:
quote:
In the Orthodox Church the liturgical day begins in the evening with the setting of the sun. This practice follows the Biblical account of creation: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen 1:5).
The Vesper service in the Church always begins with the chanting of the evening psalm: "...the sun knows it's time for setting, Thou makest darkness and it is night...." (Psalm 104: 19Ä20) This psalm, which glorifies God's creation of the world, is man's very first act of worship, for man first of all meets God as Creator.
Bless the Lord, oh my soul, 0 Lord my God, Thou art very great ...
O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom hast Thou made them all. The earth is full of Thy creatures (Ps 104:24).
Following the psalm, the Great Litany, the opening petition of all liturgical services of the Church is intoned. In it we pray to the Lord for everyone and everything.
Following this litany a number of psalms are chanted, a different group each evening. These psalms normally are omitted in parish churches though they are done in monasteries. On the eve of Sunday, however, sections of the first psalm and the other psalms which are chanted to begin the week are usually sung even in parish churches.
Psalm 141 is always sung at Vespers. During this psalm the evening incense is offered:
Lord, I call upon Thee, hear me. Hear me, O Lord.
Let my prayer arise in Thy sight as incense.
And let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice. Hear me, O Lord.
(Psalm 141:1-2).
At this point special hymns are sung for the particular day. If it be a Church feast: songs in honor of the celebration are sung. On Saturday evenings, the eve of the Lord's Day, these hymns always praise Christ's resurrection from the dead.
The special hymns normally end with a song called a Theotokion which honors Mary, the Mother of Christ. Following this, the vesperal hymn is sung. If it be a special feast or the eve of Sunday, the celebrant will come to the center or the church building with lighted candles and incense. This hymn belongs to every Vesper service.
O Gladsome Light of the holy glory of the Immortal Father, heavenly, holy, blessed Jesus Christ. Now we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening. We praise God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For it is right at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise, O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world glorifies Thee.
Christ is praised as the Light which illumines man's darkness, the Light of the world and of the Kingdom of God which shall have no evening (Isa 60:20, Rev 21:25).
A verse from the Psalms, the prokeimenon, follows -- a different one for each day, announcing the day's spiritual theme. If it be a special day, three readings from the Old Testament are included. Then more evening prayers and petitions follow with additional hymns for the particular day, all of which end with the chanting of the Song of St Simeon:
Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace according to Thy word, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation: which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people. A light for revelation to the Gentiles, and to be the glory of Thy people Israel (Lk 1:29-32).
After proclaiming our own vision of Christ, the Light and Salvation of the world, we say the prayers of the Thrice-Holy (trisagion) through to the Our Father. We sing the main theme song of the day, called the Troparion, and we are dismissed with the usual benediction.
The service of Vespers takes us through creation, sin, and salvation in Christ. It leads us to the meditation of God's word and the glorification of his love for men. It instructs us and allows us to praise God for the particular events or persons whose memory is celebrated and made present to us in the Church. It prepares us for the sleep of the night and the dawn of the new day to come. On the eves of the Divine Liturgy, it begins our movement into the most perfect communion with God in the sacramental mysteries.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/1/2004 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | selah, to answer your first question: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but but for those also who believe in Me through their word: that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, SO THAT THEY MAY SEE MY GLORY WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not know You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it knowin so that the love with which You love Me may be in them, and I in them."
To me, that bleeds Jesus being glorified not us. Everything that is done to us and for us, is for Christ's glory. He desires that those whom the Father has given Him being with Him; not because He thinks they deserve it, not because they are holy, not because they are cool, or better, or ANYTHING; excpet that they will see CHRIST'S GLORY. That's like me giving someone $10 so that they can buy me something nice (poor analogy I know, i just got up be nice). Our sole reason for existing is not to make much of ourselves but to see Christ and His glory. We are not to make much of ourselves, but of Christ alone. God didn't save us so that we could be made much of, He saved us so that we could make much of Him only.
Blessings,
Borg
Psalm 9:19, 20
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
| 78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|