NationStates Jolt Archive

Looking at the hebrew scripture - there were 'allowed' graven images - but they were specifically appointed by God. I can't think of a scriptural verse that says it is okay to create an image of god - in either 'god' form, or in earthly incarnation, and without that special divine sanction, and image must be a commandment breaker.

Of course, if we go by the strictest interpretation of the commandment, the movie I watched last night is strictly forbidden.

There is no numerical division of the Commandments. Interpreting the images as seperate from the commandment to not have other gods is an interpetive choice. Thus, the ability for you to misunderstand it.

According to your source, it was seperate. They claimed a requirement for perfectly imageless worship under mosaic law.

Exodus 25:18–20
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be."

The Mercy seat is of course where God is found…

Num. 21:8–9
"And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. "

God tells the people to make a graven statuette and place it on a stick, and that the simple sight of it would heal a person from snake bites. Interestingly enough, Jesus compared himself the bronze snake…

John 3:13-15
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Apparently neither God, who commanded the fiery serpent statuette be made in the first place, nor Jesus who compared himself to the snake, have a problem with the images and statuettes being used in either the OT or the NT.

1 Chronicles 28:18–19
"for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD. All this he made clear to me in writing from the hand of the LORD, all the work to be done according to the plan."

Ezekiel 41:17–20
"to the space above the door, even to the inner room, and on the outside. And on all the walls all around, inside and outside, was a measured pattern. It was carved of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Every cherub had two faces: a human face toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around. From the floor to above the door, cherubim and palm trees were carved; similarly the wall of the nave."

In the scripture I’ve quoted, God Himself commands that graven images be made and Jesus goes so far as to even compare himself to one of them. Now either God is incapable of following his own rules, or the position that says all graven images are wrong and by extension crucifixes as well, must be an erroneous translation/interpretation of the Commandment.

The answer, of course, is that the translation/interpretation of the Commandment is wrong, God does can and does follow his own rules.

God approves of the use of graven and carved objects, including statuary and engravings, and by extension, stained glass pictures and other artworks and statuary, when they are used for their intended purpose of helping the viewer focus on the right things to help them focus on God, exactly like the Cherubim wings told the priest the precise spot, above the mercy seat and between the Cherubim's wings, to find God when he was in the Tabernacle.

We can all agree that God forbids the worship of statues themselves, he says they have no ears to hear… We do not all agree on the definition of Graven Image when applied to the original intent of God via Moses.

Not according to your own source that said perfectly imageless worship was required. A point you've refused to address. Is your source wrong or is PERFECTLY IMAGELESS worship something else you're going to claim "actually means" something completely opposite. There is almost no way to misinterpret the passage from your source that said faces where the problem and used the qualifier PERFECTLY for the word IMAGELESS.

Is your source wrong? If not what do you think it meant?

and that symbolism doesn't make it an Idol unless one Worships it.

According to the gospel and the evidence presented by PW, it becomes an idol when worships before it thinking it represents God. Please give an example of an image of God from the OT. Just one.

no, I apply the same rules that you mentioned. I use money, but i don't worship it. as you say I don't "Love money" to the point of serving wealth. the same with idols. I don't love the Crucifix to the point that it supersedes God. as I said, intent and use.

Do you believe it represents God? If you do, it's an idol.

which hebrew scriptures allowed which graven images?

Oh, wow.

but the point is that those idols were needed for daily prayers and worship. the OT only had the alters being used for sacrifices and not for daily worship.

Um, yes, they were, my friend. The imageless alters were used by individuals for daily worship. I don't see how this is confusing for you.

but you called the altars in gods shape.

Pardon. That's not even a full thought. You claimed that the altars that Jews and Christians used were not shaped like their gods like other religions used, but that's exactly what we're saying. Once you start bowing before an image you claim represents God or whoever it is you're praying to, it's idolatry. This isn't complicated stuff.


as for the Statues of Christ. they are just statues until someone worships the statue.

They are just statues until someone claims it represents God or whoever they are praying to. Do you not claim that Christ is God? What part of that ISN'T the definition of idolatry.



just like a machette is a tool until it's raised against another human, then it becomes a weapon. Intent and use.

You keep saying this, but it's the machete is a weapon the moment it is intended to be used that way. You intend for the statue to be a representation of God, so much so that you claim it focuses your worship. If you had any knowledge of the use of graven idols, you would recognize this is exactly the intent and the use.


nah, it was just a comment to show how idotic things get when taken to the extreme. :p

Yes, like denying that mosaic law held that imageless worship was required or pretending like it was always acceptable to create images of people we pray to.


[QUOTE=JuNii;12351402] I'm not claiming they were wrong. but how can you have a truely imageless worship if one defines an idol as something you bow to?

They defined an idol as a representation of whoever you are praying to. It didn't matter if it actually looked like them if you believe it represented them. It's a limitation of God at best and worshipping another God at worst, but it's never the intent of worship. They held to it, but following the direction of God that told them worship before a pile of stones that had not been worked upon by man.

When did God change this direction? I'd be interested to know when Christians believe the commandments were revoked.


an Idol in the sense of worship, isn't just a statue but the receptical of that person's faith and belief. so as I also said, if someone is praying to the cross and they are praying TO the cross, putting their faith and belief in the cross itself, then they turn that into an Idol. but if they are praying to God and the cross just happens to be infront of them, then it's not an Idol.

Nope. Sorry. It's about putting believing that it represents God or whoever you are praying to. That's why the Jews required worship to be imageless, because anything less draws focus FROM God. It doesn't focus your faith like so many have claimed here. It distracts it.


not shaped like a human, but what of objects such as the Ark of the Covenant? the Star of David? as for men? what of Moses, Abraham, and others that God touched before the birth of Jesus. were they worshipped? I hope not. exhalted yes, but being exhalted is not the same as being worshipped. however, one cannot be sure since those days are long gone.

The golden calf was not shaped like a human but it was meant to represent a god.


Do I pray to Saints? nope. but then I'm not Catholic.

So are you saying that praying to saints is idolatry?


you didn't say that?

You misunderstood. I didn't claim archeological evidence for a lack of an event. That would be ludicrous and illogical, just as asking for it is. I claimed there is archeological evidence that this was how mosaic law was applied. There is no evidence it has ever been lifted. Prove me wrong.

then what support is there that God never releases us from the obligation?

I have never given you a complement. Can I EVER prove that true? Nope. Because it's a negative. You could prove it false. The positive assertion requires the proof.

God never releases us from the obligation under mosaic law. If you believe he did, please provide that release. I'd be interested in when God lifted the commandments.

I'm a little sad that after all this time you don't understand burden of proof. Do you believe that God never allowed us to have sex with people by cutting a hole in their belly and inserting our penises? If he didn't, then you're going to have to quote where he didn't say we could. Even the sentence structure of that is ludicrous.


really, can you show evidence of worship of those other 'gods' without the Calf or other statues being present?

I'm having a hard time taking this seriously. I'll tell you what, you provide for me the percentage of Catholic churches that have no image of Jesus.

Meanwhile, can you give one place, any place where God instructed anyone in the Bible to erect a statue of him and worship before it?

You keep saying this, but it's the machete is a weapon the moment it is intended to be used that way. You intend for the statue to be a representation of God, so much so that you claim it focuses your worship. If you had any knowledge of the use of graven idols, you would recognize this is exactly the intent and the use.
I've been trying to stay out of this, I really have, but I'd like to bring up a point though because I think JuNii has it right, the idea of a cross or crucifix (or any religious artwork) being a graven image or idol depends upon intent.

Let's talk Buddhist prayer beads for example (I'm going somewhere with this, hang with me). Buddhist of some sects use a strand of beads in prayer. The idea being that each bead is a memory aid for the various sutras (Think Rosmary, but not quite as labled). The beads don't take the place of the sutras, you still have to recite them, they don't represent the sutras, they're the religion equivlent of tying a peice of string around your finger. You can argue that they help focus the prayers, but I would say that they don't take the place of what is being prayed to (This would be an actual image for the most part). They just are a... Hmm... not sure of the word here because symbol would mean take the place of and they don't. Representation is the same, but along those lines. Menomic might be the best.

When used in that way, the cross should provide the same function. It becomes the symbol of the faith like the Stars and Stripes IDs the US, but it should be there to remind us only of what Jesus suffered.

I'm sure there are people who take it a bit too far and worship that directly, but in general, I don't see it as an idol as a focus of worship or an earthly representation of Christ (The only earthly rep is the communion).

Yeah, it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but in this case I believe you have to.

There is no numerical division of the Commandments. Interpreting the images as seperate from the commandment to not have other gods is an interpetive choice. Thus, the ability for you to misunderstand it.


This isn't strictly true. I don't know if you are aware, but Hebrew uses letter symbols for numeration also, and the verses are clearly divided. Thus - while it is possible the texts run into one another, they are numerically divided.

The fact that the same basic form is followed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 suggests this isn't coincidence - the verses were designed to read as they do.

Further - if one compares with the only collection that does have an implied numbering - the verses which - in the Hebrew scripture are CALLED the 'ten commandments' - one finds that, in order to reach a total of ten, one MUST interpret the the worshipping of other gods, and the casting of graven images, as separate.

(Try reading Exodus 34).


Oh, right, very good ... :rolleyes:


I'm being serious. I had similar arguments with a poster on here before (his name was Neo Cannen, I seem to recall). He made a lot of the same types of arguments you do - and finally, on being confronted, admitted that he had thus far failed to read the whole scripture.

The fact that you appeared to think the commandments weren't numbered (when exodus 34 gives us clear indication to the contrary) is just the sort of thing that makes me wonder if you are familiar with the whole scripture... or just the prole-friendly sunday-school version.


Interpreting dreams is not soothsaying, but we understand your intent. However, in soothsaying one tries to draw up the spirits to accomplish the tasks, spirits other than God, and thus, forbidden. Joseph didn't do that.


That isn't what soothsaying is - soothsaying is divining the future. Interestingly, this is usually condemned, but is allowed in the case of Joseph... and specifically mentioned as part of god's design in the first books of Genesis.


Galatians 3:1
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

And? This says it is okay to create a graven image? No.

I've been trying to stay out of this, I really have, but I'd like to bring up a point though because I think JuNii has it right, the idea of a cross or crucifix (or any religious artwork) being a graven image or idol depends upon intent.

Let's talk Buddhist prayer beads for example (I'm going somewhere with this, hang with me). Buddhist of some sects use a strand of beads in prayer. The idea being that each bead is a memory aid for the various sutras (Think Rosmary, but not quite as labled). The beads don't take the place of the sutras, you still have to recite them, they don't represent the sutras, they're the religion equivlent of tying a peice of string around your finger. You can argue that they help focus the prayers, but I would say that they don't take the place of what is being prayed to (This would be an actual image for the most part). They just are a... Hmm... not sure of the word here because symbol would mean take the place of and they don't. Representation is the same, but along those lines. Menomic might be the best.

When used in that way, the cross should provide the same function. It becomes the symbol of the faith like the Stars and Stripes IDs the US, but it should be there to remind us only of what Jesus suffered.

I'm sure there are people who take it a bit too far and worship that directly, but in general, I don't see it as an idol as a focus of worship or an earthly representation of Christ (The only earthly rep is the communion).

Yeah, it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but in this case I believe you have to.


i think that poot has made his case.

talking around it, stating the same things over and over, denying the evidence provided, does not change that the commandments can, and have been throughout the history of judaism and chirstianity, be read as prohibiting graven images/idols because they lead to the worshipping of false gods. the crucifix cannot lead to the worshipping of a false god unless you deny the trinity. (since jews dont have the trinity, the crucifix would obviously be an idol as far as they are concerned)

poot has backed his claim up with evidence in the bible showing that there were times when jews did use representational art for religious purposes. its logical to decide that if its OK for these items, its not banned completely.

everyone is free to make their own interpretations but it is wrong to say that poot has not set out a reasonable defense for his position. you dont have to agree with it but to say that he hasnt made is case is just being dishonest.

edit**

by which i dont mean to say that you are doing that. i was just ranting.

I noticed you changing the focus from preachers to catherdrals and the organized church et al., but I don't have time for more and more at this very moment, I'll come back later... too difficult with sick 9 mos., old on my lap and dinner waiting to be started.... ;)

I'm not changing the focus. Someone else mentioned churches and priests, I merely pointed out they also are probably not strictly true to the letter or spirit of The Law.

Don't try to pass off someone else's change of subject as some kind of ruse on my part.

This isn't strictly true. I don't know if you are aware, but Hebrew uses letter symbols for numeration also, and the verses are clearly divided. Thus - while it is possible the texts run into one another, they are numerically divided.

The fact that the same basic form is followed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 suggests this isn't coincidence - the verses were designed to read as they do.

Further - if one compares with the only collection that does have an implied numbering - the verses which - in the Hebrew scripture are CALLED the 'ten commandments' - one finds that, in order to reach a total of ten, one MUST interpret the the worshipping of other gods, and the casting of graven images, as separate.

why would you say that? the jewish 10 commandments have the 2nd commandment as the same as the catholic first commandment. to make 10 out of about 19 you have to lump some together. the lumping is up to the interpreter, its not obvious in the text.

This isn't strictly true. I don't know if you are aware, but Hebrew uses letter symbols for numeration also, and the verses are clearly divided. Thus - while it is possible the texts run into one another, they are numerically divided.

The fact that the same basic form is followed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 suggests this isn't coincidence - the verses were designed to read as they do.

Further - if one compares with the only collection that does have an implied numbering - the verses which - in the Hebrew scripture are CALLED the 'ten commandments' - one finds that, in order to reach a total of ten, one MUST interpret the the worshipping of other gods, and the casting of graven images, as separate.
Well, to be fair, everyone seems to count them differently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Division_of_the_commandments

everyone is free to make their own interpretations but it is wrong to say that poot has not set out a reasonable defense for his position. you dont have to agree with it but to say that he hasnt made is case is just being dishonest.
Er... I think you have my post confused with someone elses because I haven't addressed PootWaddle's posting at all. All I noted is that strictly speaking, the use of a cross or other religious icon wouldn't violate the rules against idols because they are used to remind us of God, not represent God directly. However, there is a danger of worshiping the image directly which WOULD be worshipping an idol.

I think it's more of a mid-point position between the two positions given here.

i would say that for the most part the crucifix is a symbol of Christ but if they are literally praying to it ("Oh crucifix") then it would definitely be a false idol

and that symbolism doesn't make it an Idol unless one Worships it.

no, I apply the same rules that you mentioned. I use money, but i don't worship it. as you say I don't "Love money" to the point of serving wealth. the same with idols. I don't love the Crucifix to the point that it supersedes God. as I said, intent and use.

which hebrew scriptures allowed which graven images?

I just thought I'd point out - the Catholic Encyclopedia aslo questions the apparent contradiction between things like the Ark of the Covenant, and the commandment not to create graven images:

"Upon it had been place two cherubim of beaten gold, looking towards each other, and spreading their wings so that both sides of the propitiatory were covered. What exactly these cherubim were, is impossible to determine; however, from the analogy with Egyptian religious art, it may well be supposed that they were images, kneeling or standing, of winged persons. It is worth noticing that this is the only exception to the law forbidding the Israelites to make carved images, an exception so much the more harmless to the faith of the Israelites in a spiritual God because the Ark was regularly to be kept behind the veil of the sanctuary."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01721a.htm

You'll notice - the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't try to rpetend this wasn't a commandment breaker - they just attempt to excuse it by saying no one ever saw it anyway.


As an example - Numbers 21:8-9 "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

Moses was implicitly instructed to make this particular graven image. If one continues reading the scripture, in Second Kings we find the same serpent being destroyed as an idol. (Second Kings 18).

This is an example, however, of the difference between the commandments of God, and of man. Despite the apparent contradiction between the 'no graven image' and the 'serpent image', it is God's will, so is beyond question.

Not so in the case of the crucifix - nowhere does Jesus give instructions on how to create a modern bronze serpent - or even state that such a thing would be desirable.

Er... I think you have my post confused with someone elses because I haven't addressed PootWaddle's posting at all. All I noted is that strictly speaking, the use of a cross or other religious icon wouldn't violate the rules against idols because they are used to remind us of God, not represent God directly. However, there is a danger of worshiping the image directly which WOULD be worshipping an idol.

I think it's more of a mid-point position between the two positions given here.

yeah while you were posting this i added an edit to mine.

junii is making largely the same point. that its not a problem. i didnt want to jump into one of those awful point by point posts. i quoted yours because i too have been trying to stay out of this thread but its getting increasingly difficult as others use poots poor debate skills as a tactic against him when he has already made all the points he needs to.

yeah while you were posting this i added an edit to mine.

junii is making largely the same point. that its not a problem. i didnt want to jump into one of those awful point by point posts. i quoted yours because i too have been trying to stay out of this thread but its getting increasingly difficult as others use poots poor debate skills as a tactic against him when he has already made all the points he needs to.
Ah, ok. Fair enough. I was just confused.

Check out my cruciform pancakes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12351842&postcount=1), fellow babies. I dunno if they're graven so much as they're buttermilk, but I'll let you decide.

Not so in the case of the crucifix - nowhere does Jesus give instructions on how to create a modern bronze serpent - or even state that such a thing would be desirable.
which would explain why I never felt the desire to own a picture nor a crucifix in my apartment.

whether or not it's considered a Graven Idol, I would say is up to each interpretation of the bible, each person and God.

Check out my cruciform pancakes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12351842&postcount=1), fellow babies. I dunno if they're graven so much as they're buttermilk, but I'll let you decide.
I dunno, are you worshiping them or just eating them? ;)

Well, to be fair, everyone seems to count them differently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Division_of_the_commandments

Not at all - as I pointed out, the only time that any commandments are [b]called[/i] the 'Ten commandments' in the scripture, there are only ten imperatives listed, and they exist in a clear structure. (Exodus 34).

The fact that modern christian organisations have argued over the specific grouping of these commandments is basically irrelevent... since these commandments weren't written for, or by, christians. Indeed - for those of us who are not Jewish, it is not Mosaic Law, but Noahide Law, that is covenanted: No idols, no murder, no theft, no adultery, no blasphemy, no eating the flesh of a living animal, and the requirement to have 'just law'.

Ah, ok. Fair enough. I was just confused.

i dont blame you.

i read what i wrote after i posted it and said to myself that it needed fixing.

which would explain why I never felt the desire to own a picture nor a crucifix in my apartment.

whether or not it's considered a Graven Idol, I would say is up to each interpretation of the bible, each person and God.

I can certainly relate to that. If the ministry of jesus had a central message, I'd have to say it was that our relationships with God must be personal, and our understanding of God must be by discernment.

Of course - I would also have to argue that, if you accept the Hebrew scripture as 'true'... God has already made his opinion pretty clear on the matter - and a crucifix would be a commandment breaker.

According to the gospel and the evidence presented by PW, it becomes an idol when worships before it thinking it represents God. Please give an example of an image of God from the OT. Just one. I never said there was.
two, don't confuse PW arguments with mine. he makes his points I make mine.
three. I said it becomes an Idol when it Replaces God.

Do you believe it represents God? If you do, it's an idol.no, the crucifix doesn't represent God. it's proof of God's love, its a symbol of Jesus's Sacrifice, but to me, it doesn't represent God.

Not at all - as I pointed out, the only time that any commandments are [b]called[/i] the 'Ten commandments' in the scripture, there are only ten imperatives listed, and they exist in a clear structure. (Exodus 34).
Actually I would say that Poot's point was made though in that different religions do reach ten on different groupings. Poot could be coming from a grouping different from what you are debating.

The fact that modern christian organisations have argued over the specific grouping of these commandments is basically irrelevent... since these commandments weren't written for, or by, christians. Indeed - for those of us who are not Jewish, it is not Mosaic Law, but Noahide Law, that is covenanted: No idols, no murder, no theft, no adultery, no blasphemy, no eating the flesh of a living animal, and the requirement to have 'just law'.
Strictly speaking though, Jesus asked us to keep the commandments and add two more. Of course it can be and is argued that Jesus also abolished all commandments, replacing them with the two he gave).

Check out my cruciform pancakes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12351842&postcount=1), fellow babies. I dunno if they're graven so much as they're buttermilk, but I'll let you decide.

i must have been living under a rock. im almost 50 years old and i have never heard of eathing pancakes on the day before ash wednesday. my sister and i were walking past the local episcopal church and noticed that they are having a pancake supper tonight. we had no clue as to why they would be doing this.

you learn something new every day.

I can certainly relate to that. If the ministry of jesus had a central message, I'd have to say it was that our relationships with God must be personal, and our understanding of God must be by discernment.

Of course - I would also have to argue that, if you accept the Hebrew scripture as 'true'... God has already made his opinion pretty clear on the matter - and a crucifix would be a commandment breaker.

no it wouldn't. why? the Graven image was any dipiction of God. now, does that include his earthly incarnation. if you say yes, then any image of any humans is a graven image since, we are all made in HIS form. so any image of a human is an image of God, and thys a commandment breaker.

now the question is, Do you follow the LETTER of the law or the SPIRIT of the law.

i must have been living under a rock. im almost 50 years old and i have never heard of eathing pancakes on the day before ash wednesday. my sister and i were walking past the local episcopal church and noticed that they are having a pancake supper tonight. we had no clue as to why they would be doing this.

you learn something new every day.
I'm just trying to keep my wife from finding this out less she uses it to get another plate of pancakes out of me.

I never said there was.
two, don't confuse PW arguments with mine. he makes his points I make mine.
three. I said it becomes an Idol when it Replaces God.

no, the crucifix doesn't represent God. it's proof of God's love, its a symbol of Jesus's Sacrifice, but to me, it doesn't represent God.

So - is it just a random crucifixion depicted?

One of the criminals that were crucified alongside Jesus, perhaps?

So - is it just a random crucifixion depicted?

One of the criminals that were crucified alongside Jesus, perhaps?

I've answered that already Grave.

Actually I would say that Poot's point was made though in that different religions do reach ten on different groupings. Poot could be coming from a grouping different from what you are debating.


Poot is debating a separate set of commandments. He argues that this list cannot be divided into a fully certain set of commands.

I agree - that is one of the problems with the Exodus and Deuteronomy laws he cites. The other problem - arguably a much greater one - is that THOSE laws are not called 'the Ten Commandments' in the scripture.

Where a group of laws ARE called 'the ten Commandments' it is much more clear that there are ten separate laws - much less possibility for confusion.


Strictly speaking though, Jesus asked us to keep the commandments and add two more. Of course it can be and is argued that Jesus also abolished all commandments, replacing them with the two he gave).


If we keep the old laws AND the laws of Jesus - then the crucifix is an abomination. If we ignore the old laws, and just keep those Jesus proposed... why shouldn't I just create symbols of Ba'al?

If we ignore the old laws, and just keep those Jesus proposed... why shouldn't I just create symbols of Ba'al?

If you can make 'em out of pancake batter, I for one heartily endorse your proposal.

I've answered that already Grave.

And, unless I'm mistaken - your opinion is that the crucifix/cross represents Jesus - rather than some random crucifixion, or some symbol of universal suffering...?

Unless you think Jesus is not 'god'... this MUST mean you consider that the crucifix represents God - in direct contradiction of what you just said.

Poot is debating a separate set of commandments. He argues that this list cannot be divided into a fully certain set of commands.
I can't answer for (and I am certainly not going to try to) Poot's position.

If we keep the old laws AND the laws of Jesus - then the crucifix is an abomination. If we ignore the old laws, and just keep those Jesus proposed... why shouldn't I just create symbols of Ba'al?
I don't know, why don't you (assuming you know what it looks like after all)?

IMO now, I always believed that Jesus's commandments abolished the previous ten because in his two (Love the Lord you God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as you love youself) he pretty much covers the same thing. If you do love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, why would you be creating and worshipping other gods or idols? And if you love your neighbor as you would yourself, why steal or murder him (Or want his ass for that matter)? That last part is, of course, my own opinion on the matter from my own studies so take it with a salt mine.

no it wouldn't. why? the Graven image was any dipiction of God. now, does that include his earthly incarnation. if you say yes, then any image of any humans is a graven image since, we are all made in HIS form.

The difference is - we look like God (if that is what 'made in his image even means)... while we are often told Jesus is God. That's a pretty big difference.

But, I agree - since the verses say create no images of anything of heaven, earth or the deep, any images should be forbidden - posters, photographs, statues, movies. Not because we look like God - but because he says create no graven image.

And, unless I'm mistaken - your opinion is that the crucifix/cross represents Jesus - rather than some random crucifixion, or some symbol of universal suffering...?

Unless you think Jesus is not 'god'... this MUST mean you consider that the crucifix represents God - in direct contradiction of what you just said.

read it again. "Like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target."

and no, the target hasn't moved.

i think that poot has made his case.

talking around it, stating the same things over and over, denying the evidence provided, does not change that the commandments can, and have been throughout the history of judaism and chirstianity, be read as prohibiting graven images/idols because they lead to the worshipping of false gods.

Not according to Poot's own source. You were not allowed to bow or worship before imagery in Judaism. Saying that throughout the history of Judaism this wasn't true, is simply not accurate. The idea that it is okay to erect statues of people and worship in front of them is very new to both Judaism and even Christianity in that it was not present in the earliest days.

the crucifix cannot lead to the worshipping of a false god unless you deny the trinity. (since jews dont have the trinity, the crucifix would obviously be an idol as far as they are concerned)

Show where it was ever okay to erect an image even to represent God. It's never happened. Jews don't believe it can or should.

You claim the history of Judaism supports you and then you dismiss the views of Jews. Interesting dichotomy, that one.


poot has backed his claim up with evidence in the bible showing that there were times when jews did use representational art for religious purposes. its logical to decide that if its OK for these items, its not banned completely.

None of those representations were thought to be of what they were praying to or to represent God in any way. You'll not find a single representation of God. Not one. You claim that images are okay provided they are of God, but this is not supported by scripture.


everyone is free to make their own interpretations but it is wrong to say that poot has not set out a reasonable defense for his position. you dont have to agree with it but to say that he hasnt made is case is just being dishonest.

edit**

by which i dont mean to say that you are doing that. i was just ranting.
He hsan't. Again, he posted a source that said that Mosaic law required perfectly imageless worship. How does any thing he's shown retract that point or override the Mosaic commandments?

read it again. "Like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target."

and no, the target hasn't moved.

If you think I am misrepresenting you, and you refuse to respond to a direct question, the problem isn't with my marksmanship, but with your obfuscation.

You say that the crucifixion doesn't represent god. I say - who is on the cross?

read it again. "Like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target."
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!!!!!!!!

who is on the cross?
No, Who is on first!

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

If you think I am misrepresenting you, and you refuse to respond to a direct question, the problem isn't with my marksmanship, but with your obfuscation.

You say that the crucifixion doesn't represent god. I say - who is on the cross?

I said it's a symbol of God's love, of Jesus's Sacrifice, thus it's NOT a representation of GOD, but GOD's Love.

Who's on the cross. The Lamb of God.

read it again. "Like a bad marksman, you keep missing the target."

and no, the target hasn't moved.

I think it's really simple. Would you mind if I put a skirt on an image of "Jesus" on the crucifixion? I don't view it as God or representative of Him, so I don't mind doing it. The question is do you think the image, the statue, deserves reverence. If It does, can you not see how this would distract Christians from the true object of our faith and instead waste our time worrying about what happens to idols?

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!!!!!!!!


No, Who is on first!

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

No, Who's on second, Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaannn's on first.

How irresistible.

I said it's a symbol of God's love, of Jesus's Sacrifice, thus it's NOT a representation of GOD, but GOD's Love.

Who's on the cross. The Lamb of God.

By 'lamb of god' I assume you mean Jesus. So you do have a specific deity in mind when you regard the cross. You may quibble your intent "I'm thinking about the sacrifice" etc... but at the bottom of it all, the Crucifix means Jesus.

To pretend otherwise is to allow that maybe God was unjust to the people with their golden bulls... after all, the golden bull just represented the virility of their god... and you are arguing that is different.

it is an idol of a false god. However if it was an idol of a true God i'd be ok with it.

I think it's really simple. Would you mind if I put a skirt on an image of "Jesus" on the crucifixion? won't bother me.
Edit: Correction, it would bother me, but only as the fact that it's not respecting other people's property. now if you said you put a skirt on YOUR crucifixion. then no it won't bother me a bit.
I don't view it as God or representative of Him, so I don't mind doing it. The question is do you think the image, the statue, deserves reverence. If It does, can you not see how this would distract Christians from the true object of our faith and instead waste our time worrying about what happens to idols?I hold the image and the statue as valuable as I would any of my other possessions. I would care for them, but I won't go out of my way to destroy/deface them. so yes, I would treat that image/statue/crucifix with respect. but to me, that's not God.

Depending on which particular "Christian" religion you are Jesus is either god or the son thereof. If you believe the former then it's perfectly kosher to pray to him, if you believe the latter then you're breaking the commandments.

I really don't know where catholics stand on that one.

Well, technically, they are seperate but one. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I think Doctor Paisley put it best (whether you agree with his politics or not) in that "If I could fully understand the Trinity, there'd be a fourth member."

I think it's really simple. Would you mind if I put a skirt on an image of "Jesus" on the crucifixion? I don't view it as God or representative of Him, so I don't mind doing it. The question is do you think the image, the statue, deserves reverence. If It does, can you not see how this would distract Christians from the true object of our faith and instead waste our time worrying about what happens to idols?
I thought it was slightly disturbing to see him in the pink bunny suit, but that has to do with how distrubing the pink bunny suit IS.

There, we've brought this back to the original issue that spawed this thread.

won't bother me.
Edit: Correction, it would bother me, but only as the fact that it's not respecting other people's property. now if you said you put a skirt on YOUR crucifixion. then no it won't bother me a bit.
I hold the image and the statue as valuable as I would any of my other possessions. I would care for them, but I won't go out of my way to destroy/deface them. so yes, I would treat that image/statue/crucifix with respect. but to me, that's not God.

Fair enough. Honestly, I took NyQuil a bit ago because I'm ill. I honestly can't think well enough to reply anymore.

Oh, quite right. Saints are not to be prayed to in any fashion. That's idolatry. Honestly the whole christian thing smacks of polytheism anyway. You've got three principle gods, a whole slew of angels who are basically lesser gods, then you've got saints who are demigods.

That's what most of the Reformers were trying to fix. I mean, In Revelations, when John bowed down to the angel (can't remember his name :( ), the angel quickly rebuked him saying 'Yo man, I ain't God, don't bow to me' (or something along those lines ;) ).

And the majority of the Protestant denominations do not recognize the saints as divine in any sense like God is. The Lutherans come the closest, but still don't quite get there like the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches do.

By 'lamb of god' I assume you mean Jesus. So you do have a specific deity in mind when you regard the cross. You may quibble your intent "I'm thinking about the sacrifice" etc... but at the bottom of it all, the Crucifix means Jesus. to you maybe, but not to me, the Crucifixition is not Jesus. the Teachings are Jesus, but the Crucifixition is The Lamb of God. so to answer your next question, yes, Jesus is not on the cross, but the Lamb is. He "Becomes" Jesus again after the Resurrection.

To pretend otherwise is to allow that maybe God was unjust to the people with their golden bulls... after all, the golden bull just represented the virility of their god... and you are arguing that is different.never argued that a Golden Bull was an idol. I've always said that a statue became an Idol when it was the subject of that worship.

now were they killed for worshipping a statue of a bull or were they killed for worshipping another 'god'?

either way, God's judgement wasn't unjust concerning what happened after Moses came down from the mountain.

Fair enough. Honestly, I took NyQuil a bit ago because I'm ill. I honestly can't think well enough to reply anymore.

get some sleep. and hope you feel better in the morning. :p

to you maybe, but not to me, the Crucifixition is not Jesus. the Teachings are Jesus, but the Crucifixition is The Lamb of God. so to answer your next question, yes, Jesus is not on the cross, but the Lamb is. He "Becomes" Jesus again after the Resurrection.

Interesting statement, I have to say. I've never heard that before.

Random statement: My preacher at my old church tended to downplay the cross a lot. In fact, I think his statement was that the symbol of Christianity should be the empty tomb, not the cross. Yes, Christ died on the cross for our sins, but His death would have been meaningless had he not then proceeded to conquor death through the Ressurection.

Anyways, that's two cents.

I thought it was slightly disturbing to see him in the pink bunny suit, but that has to do with how distrubing the pink bunny suit IS.

There, we've brought this back to the original issue that spawed this thread.

thank you for that image... :headbang:

BTW... thanks to smunkee's thread about dress up Jesus, I now DO have a picture of him in a pink bunny suit. :p

I have seen people bow down in front of a crucifix, I have seen them look at me funny when I don't, I know they are giving it more standing than the pews, they are both made of wood, so what's the difference?

Don't feel too bad. My one friend's parents are Catholic, and when I stayed over at his house one night, I ended up going to mass on Sunday with them.

I'm a Calvinist. How awkward do you think that was? :p

In fact, I think his statement was that the symbol of Christianity should be the empty tomb, not the cross. Yes, Christ died on the cross for our sins, but His death would have been meaningless had he not then proceeded to conquor death through the Ressurection.

It's harder to wear an empty tomb around your neck though. ;)

thank you for that image... :headbang:
You're welcome!

BTW... thanks to smunkee's thread about dress up Jesus, I now DO have a picture of him in a pink bunny suit. :p
Like I said, back to the issue that started this.

It's harder to wear an empty tomb around your neck though. ;)

You could manage, although the design might get expensive.

But really, how many people carry around a full-sized cross with them?

Although that would be quite a sight...

Not according to Poot's own source. You were not allowed to bow or worship before imagery in Judaism. Saying that throughout the history of Judaism this wasn't true, is simply not accurate. The idea that it is okay to erect statues of people and worship in front of them is very new to both Judaism and even Christianity in that it was not present in the earliest days.



Show where it was ever okay to erect an image even to represent God. It's never happened. Jews don't believe it can or should.

You claim the history of Judaism supports you and then you dismiss the views of Jews. Interesting dichotomy, that one.




None of those representations were thought to be of what they were praying to or to represent God in any way. You'll not find a single representation of God. Not one. You claim that images are okay provided they are of God, but this is not supported by scripture.



He hsan't. Again, he posted a source that said that Mosaic law required perfectly imageless worship. How does any thing he's shown retract that point or override the Mosaic commandments?

poot isnt good at making his own argument. he isnt good at pointing out the problems with your objections to his argument. that still doesnt make his basic argument wrong.

there were times in the bible when limited representational art was allowed and times where it wasnt. *shrug* take it up with god. take your pick of which part you find more important.

if you think about it, or read about it, there is a good reason why jews are not allowed to make images of god. their god was never a man. he cannot be represented by anything on this earth, in heaven, whereever. therefore any "graven idol" that is used to represent god limits our view of god. there is also the problem of those living in a land surrounded by pagans who do worship idols. they were everywhere and the jews of the bible were prone to picking up the practice. leading them to worship not the one true god but some strange god of other people.

the christian god includes a man, jesus christ. he was a concrete human being who can easily be portrayed by a statue. to do so is not to limit our idea of him. in many ways it helps our understanding of him. it is not the same as a statue of god the father. a statue of god the father would be ridiculous--like the image of god as an old man with a long flowing white beard. that image does tend to limit our understanding of god. since jesus wasnt part of the jewish understanding of god (duh) it does not necessarily follow that a representation of him is wrong in the same way that the representation of god the father would be.

poot posted a source that said that there were times when jews made altars with faces on them. faces represent the face of god and are normally banned. they still did it. it means something. it means that in practice jews of ancient times did not have the same problem with representational art that you have. the list of inages that they added to various things over the ages is quite long. there were times when this was considered OK and times when it wasnt. again, take your pick. if i pick a different time than you do, it does not make me wrong, just different.

you may have noticed that christians are not jews. we do not for the most part follow jewish laws. we are free to interpret the old testament rules in a more humane fashion just as jesus did. we no longer keep saturday holy; we no longer require our boys to be circumsized; we no longer follow the dietary laws; we can even turn the lights on on our holy day.

christianity used representational art and icons from the very beginning. it continues to this day. thousands of years of christian thinking finds it OK. the cross, crucifx, and/or icons are used by the vast majority of all christians of all times. roman catholics, eastern orthodox, anglican/espiscopal, and half of all lutherans use the crucifix. the majority of all protestants are fine with the use of the cross as a symbol of christianity. yes i do think that the biggest thinkers of christianity of the past 2000 years being OK with it means that it has to be a reasonable interpretation. not that YOU have to agree with it but that you really should agree that they have a point.

Interesting statement, I have to say. I've never heard that before.

Random statement: My preacher at my old church tended to downplay the cross a lot. In fact, I think his statement was that the symbol of Christianity should be the empty tomb, not the cross. Yes, Christ died on the cross for our sins, but His death would have been meaningless had he not then proceeded to conquor death through the Ressurection.

Anyways, that's two cents.my thoughts exactly. tho the crucifixition itself is also the final sacrifice to be made to wash away our sins. thus the distinction between Jesus, and the Lamb of God. And as you said, The Ressurection is the triumph over Death.

for some reason, that's how I've always felt about it.

It's harder to wear an empty tomb around your neck though. ... howabout the circular stone sybolizing the open tomb?

I believe the crucifix is symbolic of Christ, and is therefore not considered an idol. However, I do think it idol-worship when people pray to Mary or the Saints.

yet others bring up scriptures to support their stance that it's sacrilegious. :rolleyes:
and also, you're talking Christian faith so of course the bible is brought forth. :rolleyes:
add to the fact that this entire thread is based off of what is described in the bible kinda makes your argument just plain stupid. :rolleyes: You were repeating the biblical claim that non-Jew-ish folks in ancient times were idol-worshipers who could not distinguish between the symbols used in rituals from the gods they prayed to. That is plain wrong and only an expression of jewish-christian arrogance over the real high cultures of ancient times.

and yet they needed the calf to pray to Hathor. that makes it an Idol. :rolleyes: they didn't need the calf. thy could have prayed to Hathor without it just the same. However, they wanted to have it, just like churches want to have a cross or crucifix as a point of focus.

ok, point. but doesn't disprove anything.It disproves your understanding of the bible. Mentioning Christians in the OT means you have no clue AT ALL what you are babbling about.

see, you admit it, it's a symbol, not an Idol. Thanks.And? Just like any statue representing any god is a symbol. Folks never worshiped the metal, stone, or wood the statue was made of but the god the respective form represented.

I believe the crucifix is symbolic of Christ, and is therefore not considered an idol.? A crucifix even contains a depiction of Yeshua.
However, I do think it idol-worship when people pray to Mary or the Saints.How so?

to you maybe, but not to me, the Crucifixition is not Jesus. the Teachings are Jesus, but the Crucifixition is The Lamb of God. so to answer your next question, yes, Jesus is not on the cross, but the Lamb is. He "Becomes" Jesus again after the Resurrection.


I find this illogical. We have Jesus speaking to his father from the cross, at the last. We have Jesus talking - before the fact - about what is to become of him.

If 'Jesus' did not die on the cross, then the resurrection is an illogical mockery.

I agree that Jesus takes the place of the sacrificial lamb/scapegoat, and the cross takes the place of the altar. I agree that the vicarious substitution is like an ultimate version of the blood sacrifices of the hebrew scripture. But - a lamb is a lamb, and a man is a man. When you look at the crucifix, you see a man on the cross - no matter what he represents. And that man, is Jesus - the living incarnation of God.

I find this illogical. We have Jesus speaking to his father from the cross, at the last. We have Jesus talking - before the fact - about what is to become of him.

If 'Jesus' did not die on the cross, then the resurrection is an illogical mockery.

I agree that Jesus takes the place of the sacrificial lamb/scapegoat, and the cross takes the place of the altar. I agree that the vicarious substitution is like an ultimate version of the blood sacrifices of the hebrew scripture. But - a lamb is a lamb, and a man is a man. When you look at the crucifix, you see a man on the cross - no matter what he represents. And that man, is Jesus - the living incarnation of God.the alleged living incarnation of an alleged God, that is ;)

the alleged living incarnation of an alleged God, that is ;)

Oh, obviously. We are talking 'in character' to an extent. After all, if there are no gods, then arguments about idolatry are moot, right?

I find this illogical. We have Jesus speaking to his father from the cross, at the last. We have Jesus talking - before the fact - about what is to become of him.

If 'Jesus' did not die on the cross, then the resurrection is an illogical mockery.

I agree that Jesus takes the place of the sacrificial lamb/scapegoat, and the cross takes the place of the altar. I agree that the vicarious substitution is like an ultimate version of the blood sacrifices of the hebrew scripture. But - a lamb is a lamb, and a man is a man. When you look at the crucifix, you see a man on the cross - no matter what he represents. And that man, is Jesus - the living incarnation of God.

there was an early christian sect, the name escapes me, that held that jesus was 2 seperate beings, the man who was born of his parents mary and joseph and the christ who is the spiritual son of god. they were united at jesus's baptism by john. (hence god announcing that jesus was his begotten son at that moment) when jesus was crucified, the christ spirit left him to suffer on his own (hence the "my god why have you forsaken me?" line). oh now i dont remember if they were supposed to be reunited after the resurrection or if only the christ spirit came to the disciples later.

ok firstly, bowing to an image of Christ is one thing, worshipping it is another. You would bow before the Lord if there were a crucifix there or not, it isnt like you are bowing to the thing itself, you are bowing to Christ.

Secondly, its not an idol because it is for Christ. A graven image was to be described as something that wasn't God, if you belive that you shouldnt represent Christ in anyway, than that is fine, but you cant say that just because there is a picture of someone on a cross that its a false idol.

Thirdly, It doesnt matter what they depict Christ as, white, black, mexican, mediterraianan, (which he probably was more than anything else). Keep in mind that we are made in Christ's image, therefore we all look like him in one way shape or form. People need to stop bickering about his color, and start trying to figure out why we are all different colors. Think back to bable, the cause of people haveing differnt color, and langauge. If we would stop being consumed by race, we would make much better Christ Followers.

Fourth, Mary is not the new ark, Christ is the new ark, If you wanna get into it more email me.

and finally, to all the people that i see say that the fact that Christ rose is illogical, well think about this it had to happen that way. When Christ died he went to hell for three days inorder to pay our penance for our sins. Deing wasnt enough he had to endure the punishment. He also had to rise from the dead in order for us to rise. In Revalation it talks about how in the final days the righteous will rise out of their graves and walk the earth before coming to heaven. Well if christ hadnt died, AND rose from the dead guess what neither could we. The process of his death, penance, and resurrection are actually probably the most logical process in the Bible. He did everything before us, so that we could actually do it.

If you wish to comment you can email me at acesdiamonds88@yahoo.com

poot isnt good at making his own argument. he isnt good at pointing out the problems with your objections to his argument. that still doesnt make his basic argument wrong.

there were times in the bible when limited representational art was allowed and times where it wasnt. *shrug* take it up with god. take your pick of which part you find more important.

if you think about it, or read about it, there is a good reason why jews are not allowed to make images of god. their god was never a man. he cannot be represented by anything on this earth, in heaven, whereever. therefore any "graven idol" that is used to represent god limits our view of god. there is also the problem of those living in a land surrounded by pagans who do worship idols. they were everywhere and the jews of the bible were prone to picking up the practice. leading them to worship not the one true god but some strange god of other people.

the christian god includes a man, jesus christ. he was a concrete human being who can easily be portrayed by a statue. to do so is not to limit our idea of him. in many ways it helps our understanding of him. it is not the same as a statue of god the father. a statue of god the father would be ridiculous--like the image of god as an old man with a long flowing white beard. that image does tend to limit our understanding of god. since jesus wasnt part of the jewish understanding of god (duh) it does not necessarily follow that a representation of him is wrong in the same way that the representation of god the father would be.

poot posted a source that said that there were times when jews made altars with faces on them. faces represent the face of god and are normally banned. they still did it. it means something. it means that in practice jews of ancient times did not have the same problem with representational art that you have. the list of inages that they added to various things over the ages is quite long. there were times when this was considered OK and times when it wasnt. again, take your pick. if i pick a different time than you do, it does not make me wrong, just different.

you may have noticed that christians are not jews. we do not for the most part follow jewish laws. we are free to interpret the old testament rules in a more humane fashion just as jesus did. we no longer keep saturday holy; we no longer require our boys to be circumsized; we no longer follow the dietary laws; we can even turn the lights on on our holy day.

christianity used representational art and icons from the very beginning. it continues to this day. thousands of years of christian thinking finds it OK. the cross, crucifx, and/or icons are used by the vast majority of all christians of all times. roman catholics, eastern orthodox, anglican/espiscopal, and half of all lutherans use the crucifix. the majority of all protestants are fine with the use of the cross as a symbol of christianity. yes i do think that the biggest thinkers of christianity of the past 2000 years being OK with it means that it has to be a reasonable interpretation. not that YOU have to agree with it but that you really should agree that they have a point.

First, let me say, Ash, that I'm really sick and can barely concentrate hard enough to read anything. But I'm interested in enough in your argument to try. If you don't think that's a compliment then I didn't say it right.

I didn't read everything you wrote, because I am unable to, but what I read sparked a question. While I agree that Jews never had a man that was God and thus it's much easier for Christians to represent God without offending Him than Jews. (I think that was your point). But then the question has to be aren't we just guessing that it's okay, when the safer bet would be to not do it?

It's not necessary. There is no need for it. JuNii pointed out that we can pray fine without it. Why would we take that risk?

Second, they said that the altars that did have faces on them were in violation of Mosaic law and that they only found ONE example. That you could take that to mean they don't have the same problem with representational art I do is, shall we say, odd.

get some sleep. and hope you feel better in the morning. :p

I don't, but I'm working on it and thank you.

I don't, but I'm working on it and thank you.

If it's the same crap I had, you have about 48 hours of the really rough stuff. I'd like to apologise for my scanter (and probably crapper) than usual responses over the last couple of days, too. :)

But Jesus gives us examples of what that 'service' for each other means - and it is not a privileged position, much less a salaried one. Indeed, he describes it as being basically a servant or slave - and that one should seek to make one's self lesser than other men to do it.

Wow. I don't think Jesus was talking about the false humility of seeking to make one's self lesser than others.

I'm also wondering why you think the salaries most preachers get are an example of privilege. Sure, there are some preachers who get insane salaries, but most that I've known got a lot less than society would give to another person with their level of education in another profession.

This idea that you can go to a 'church' where an expert can tell you what the scripture is supposed to mean to you - is the exact thing Jesus fought against during his earthly ministry.

Then why did he teach in synagogues? Why did he instruct a particular group of disciples to go out and spread the good news to others?

Jesus didn't fight against synagogues, but rather actively participated in their service to the community. He also was not limited by them. He taught just as well outside of a synagogue.

Jesus commanded us to obey the law of those who were the official religious teachers, while not participating in their hypocrisy and showmanship, while keeping our focus on a healthy relationship with God and others.

What Jesus fought against was the idea that service to God and others was to be confined to the synagogue, the idea that it was to be confined to traditional Jewish worship. He proposed a life in service to God and others that was integrated with all parts of a person's life, that did not stop after one left the synagogue and public places. He wanted us to live a good life both in the synagogue and out of it. He wanted us to keep our focus on living a life in harmony with God rather than having our focus on just following the rules that God had given.

The modern christian church is just the Pharisees, reborn in 20th century dress.

To a large extent, yes. But it's because, once again, the focus is so often put on following the rules ahead of following God, on going to church rather than truly being a part of the church (the Body of Christ) wherever you go.

Graven idols thing was in Old Testament. New Testament = new covenant with God. Jesus did away with the rules of the Old Testament - 2 Corinthians 3:14 (and if you think He didn't despite this passage, then you better start killing people: Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 13:13-19 (from the Old Testament). But there's more proof that Jesus did do away with the old Testament, by comparing the passages Leviticus 24:20 (from the Old Testament) and Matthew 5:38-39 (from the New Testament)).

Graven idols thing was in Old Testament. New Testament = new covenant with God. Jesus did away with the rules of the Old Testament - 2 Corinthians 3:14 (and if you think He didn't despite this passage, then you better start killing people: Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 13:13-19 (from the Old Testament). But there's more proof that Jesus did do away with the old Testament, by comparing the passages Leviticus 24:20 (from the Old Testament) and Matthew 5:38-39 (from the New Testament)).

It's truely amazing how many people can't seem to understand that very basic concept. Or better yet, selectively follow old testament teachings.

First, let me say, Ash, that I'm really sick and can barely concentrate hard enough to read anything. But I'm interested in enough in your argument to try. If you don't think that's a compliment then I didn't say it right.

I didn't read everything you wrote, because I am unable to, but what I read sparked a question. While I agree that Jews never had a man that was God and thus it's much easier for Christians to represent God without offending Him than Jews. (I think that was your point). But then the question has to be aren't we just guessing that it's okay, when the safer bet would be to not do it?

It's not necessary. There is no need for it. JuNii pointed out that we can pray fine without it. Why would we take that risk?

Second, they said that the altars that did have faces on them were in violation of Mosaic law and that they only found ONE example. That you could take that to mean they don't have the same problem with representational art I do is, shall we say, odd.

we can save it for when youre feeling better.

youre right. its NOT necessary. the only real reason for it is tradition. thats a good enough reason for me. if its not part of your tradition, i dont see any reason to take it up. if it is, i dont see any reason to get rid of it.