Wearing a crucifix: yes or no?

[Pizzaguy]

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

So, what is the definition of graven image? :

 

[Hitch]

What is it that you don't understand about context, Hitch?

Nothing you are in error

Please go back and read the post where I posted Ex 20:1-5 and show how I altered it.

I plainly said you altered my question , dont be dishonest.

I have clearly answered it and shown why your understanding is in error.

You have repeatedly refused to asnwer the question asked. And you have falsely implied that I claim you altered the passage. The question is repeated below.

Tell me Free, was it lawful for an Isrealite to make and/or own such an image?

 

[Hitch]

So, what is the definition of graven image? :

In a word; MANUFACTURED

If God is pleased by these things he certainly doesnt show it in the text. It didnt just happen that one of the most glaring marks of the truth of Israel's calling was that they ,alone, forbade images. The God of Abe Issac and Jacob is far too glorious too even be depicted.

12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.

15Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,



7All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

25To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.


This comes the first time God is speaking to the Nation as a whole. It pointed in the extreme ;: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude ; that sets the context. I dont believe the foundational nature of this principle and commandment can be overlooked.

 

[JacobBoheme]

Was the Ark of the Covenant with the gold cherubim on it an inappropriate / idolatrous graven image?
View attachment 2300
What about the staff with the bronze serpent on it that Moses used?

 

[reba]

Was the Ark of the Covenant with the gold cherubim on it an inappropriate / idolatrous graven image?
View attachment 2695
What about the staff with the bronze serpent on it that Moses used?

Those were commanded/requested by God to be built.

 

[Free]

Nothing you are in error

Yet you have not shown that to be so.

I plainly said you altered my question , dont be dishonest.

I misread, nothing more. No need to be so judgmental.

You have repeatedly refused to asnwer the question asked. And you have falsely implied that I claim you altered the passage. The question is repeated below.

Tell me Free, was it lawful for an Isrealite to make and/or own such an image?

Wow. I have clearly answered your question; that is there for all to see. Again, what is it about context that you do not understand?

 

[Hitch]

Yet you have not shown that to be so.


I misread, nothing more. No need to be so judgmental.


Wow. I have clearly answered your question; that is there for all to see. Again, what is it about context that you do not understand?

Yet you have not shown that to be so.


And you still refuse to answer ho hum.

 

[Hitch]

Was the Ark of the Covenant with the gold cherubim on it an inappropriate / idolatrous graven image?
View attachment 2695
What about the staff with the bronze serpent on it that Moses used?

Reba has already answered this so I'll respond with a question that fits the template;

Does God condone/desire human sacrifice?

 

[Free]

Yet you have not shown that to be so.


And you still refuse to answer ho hum.

And with that I bow out. I have clearly answered the question and you are unwilling or unable to consider the context of the verse in question. There is nothing left to be said.

 

[Hitch]

And with that I bow out. I have clearly answered the question and you are unwilling or unable to consider the context of the verse in question. There is nothing left to be said.

Here is the question in case you find some strength;

Tell me Free, was it lawful for an Isrealite to make and/or own such an image?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Read Rom 14 again -

"What others may think should not bother you."

That foolishness is the "Spirit of the World System" talking: %^$#$ everybody else, I'll do what I feel like doing.

Paul teaches that what "Others" think is quite important for testimony reasons.

OF course, if you couldn't care less about others, then do what you want.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by Pizzaguy
So, what is the definition of graven image? :

In a word; MANUFACTURED

I am usually a fan of your posts, Hitch. But this time, I think you are in danger of walking off an intellectual cliff. YOu may still be right, but I don't think so.

Every reference I have looked at agrees with my long-time Pastor in Michigan: A graven image is a carving of stone or wood used in a perverted (spiritually perverted) way to 'worship' God.

This comes from distrust of God, a distrust that can take one or more forms, but essentially it comes from a lack of faith or trust in God, that is, a fear that God does not have our best interests at heat - hence, the person buys or makes an image to use in worship to make God be what they want Him to be.

It can get to where the image becomes their God.

I do not see where a cross or crucifix, carried or worn in a reverent way, is a graven image. But I do see where it COULD become that to an individual.

 

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Pizzaguy
So, what is the definition of graven image? :



I am usually a fan of your posts, Hitch. But this time, I think you are in danger of walking off an intellectual cliff. YOu may still be right, but I don't think so.

That is precisely why I included references to Reformed authors, the argument with me ( admittedly not on old hand at Reformed doctrines ) is by proxy. Its Calvin and Henry and the Westminster Confession of Faith, among others, who make this argument, with which I agree. So if the ledge is close Im good company.

Every reference I have looked at agrees with my long-time Pastor in Michigan: A graven image is a carving of stone or wood used in a perverted (spiritually perverted) way to 'worship' God.

This comes from distrust of God, a distrust that can take one or more forms, but essentially it comes from a lack of faith or trust in God, that is, a fear that God does not have our best interests at heat - hence, the person buys or makes an image to use in worship to make God be what they want Him to be.

It can get to where the image becomes their God.

By now you've refreshed your memory of the text and I'll point out, since it is a legal document, the placement and wording; When the 2nd is repeated the opening is always the same ;

1. You shall not make for yourself any carved image,

Obviously this is the primary aspect of the Commandment, Dont make the image to begin with. As in an earlier post God makes two very important points here . One this is part of the tiny fraction of Scripture personally written by God, second God says specifically , at the begining,

2And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. ( this is the origin of the context)

I think its quite clear, the boys were not to take the car to the mall BECAUSE they were not to take the car at all ,and should have known that.

As to the intent objection, 'it only matters if its used or intended for worship', I reckon is well covered by #1.

I do not see where a cross or crucifix, carried or worn in a reverent way, is a graven image. But I do see where it COULD become that to an individual.

That would make perfect sense , were it not for the fact of the 2nd Commandment . Some one asked earlier where the 'line ' should be drawn, and I think its right between the cross and the crucifix. If the making and possession of the image offends God, how can any amount of 'reverence' overcome what is written in stone ? Can it really even be considered reverence at all ?

Logically if the intent argument is correct and Israelite could lawfully make and image of Dagon or Molech provided only that he not bow down to it.

 

[Fedusenko]

YOu may still be right, but I don't think so.

By far my favorite line in all of Christian Forums! You really ought to run in politics! I would vote for you!

Aside from that... I agree with Hitch. This is odd territory, but I think he is on the money. At first I thought Hitch was being sarcastic and I was thinking of some clever remark to make, but I kept reading and saw that he is sincere about it. With that rare statement, I shall add my two cents.

God is so against idolization that not even a tool could touch an altar for sacrifices. The whole she-bang had to be made by hand alone. I take this as far as a scratch from a loose sword on the stone was forbade for even the idea that you might have disobeyed God's idol command was a devastation to one's credit.

The counterpoint is the ark of the covenant. There were specific instructions on it's creation. Finely crafted with rare materials... but the difference I see is that the ark contained His gift to man and the altar is man's gift to God. Please take that comment with understanding and not go off the deep end. Undoubtably someone will.

With that being said, no crucifix. God has given enough things to remind us of our Christian dutys. There's the circumcision and there is the 10 commandments that God said to put on your doorpost and gate post. Your hands should be a reminder to your head and your heart and soul. The crucifix was nothing God ever said to use as a reminder. Anyways, do you think that when Jesus comes back he is going to want to see another cross?

Also, I have heard that the Romans used the cross as a sacrifice altar that originated with Tammuz, thus the T shape. I recognize the possible error in the claim, but wondered if anyone had anything to add to the matter.

P.S. It is nice to agree with you, Hitch.

 

[Hitch]

By far my favorite line in all of Christian Forums! You really ought to run in politics! I would vote for you!

Aside from that... I agree with Hitch. This is odd territory, (LOL) but I think he is on the money. At first I thought Hitch was being sarcastic and I was thinking of some clever remark to make, but I kept reading and saw that he is sincere about it. With that rare statement, I shall add my two cents.

God is so against idolization that not even a tool could touch an altar for sacrifices. The whole she-bang had to be made by hand alone. I take this as far as a scratch from a loose sword on the stone was forbade for even the idea that you might have disobeyed God's idol command was a devastation to one's credit.

The counterpoint is the ark of the covenant. There were specific instructions on it's creation. Finely crafted with rare materials... but the difference I see is that the ark contained His gift to man and the altar is man's gift to God. Please take that comment with understanding and not go off the deep end. Undoubtably someone will.

With that being said, no crucifix. God has given enough things to remind us of our Christian dutys. There's the circumcision and there is the 10 commandments that God said to put on your doorpost and gate post. Your hands should be a reminder to your head and your heart and soul. The crucifix was nothing God ever said to use as a reminder. Anyways, do you think that when Jesus comes back he is going to want to see another cross?

Also, I have heard that the Romans used the cross as a sacrifice altar that originated with Tammuz, thus the T shape. I recognize the possible error in the claim, but wondered if anyone had anything to add to the matter.

P.S. It is nice to agree with you, Hitch.

Your bravery is noted Fed


Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 109:


Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5] tolerating a false religion;[6] the making 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;[7] all worshiping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9] the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all superstitious devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,[15] or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title of antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,[23] contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.[26]

 

[Lloyd]

-- edited

 

[pHghost]

Those were commanded/requested by God to be built.

So you are claiming that God contradicts himself?

Do NOT make any graven images! Well, unless I command otherwise later...?

LOL when I equate you with the bible I'll throw in with the Taliban .

I am not telling you to listen to my opinions, I am asking you to reexamine the Bible, in its own context. Which would have been clear if you didn't take what I wrote out of context. It seems to be a thing you are quite good at.

Your insistence on the single word, GRAVEN, show exactly how interested you are in the wider context of things.

Plus, you rebuttals to Biblical arguments presented against your claims seem to constitute of constantly repeating the same lines over and over, as if you thought that repeating the same line again made it more true. As a result, this discussion really isn't leading anywhere, and I completely understand that Free bowed out.

To answer your question to him; was it lawful for an Isrealite to make and/or own such an image?

As Free said, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest it would be unlawful, unless you consider the verses you love to repeat, when taken out of context (which makes them invalid proof). If you want some proof that actually the Jews themselves did not interpret it that way, read up on the Dura-Europos synagogue.

 

[Hitch]

So you are claiming that God contradicts himself?

No and its ridiculous of you to make such a suggestion

Do NOT make any graven images! Well, unless I command otherwise later...?

LOL when I equate you with the bible I'll throw in with the Taliban .

I am not telling you to listen to my opinions, I am asking you to reexamine the Bible, in its own context. Which would have been clear if you didn't take what I wrote out of context. It seems to be a thing you are quite good at.

You have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions .
Yes, these guys were masters at looking at things plainly, and so missing out on the context a lot. Do you mean to say that you trust the interpretation made by Calvin, Henry and Boettner more than you trust the interpretation by the Bible itself? I think that is quite dangerous and could easily lead you to many a valley of heresy. Take a hint, 500 years from now no one will remember you, and they will still be researching Calvin and the Westminster Confession, and Mary will still be dead and fools will still think its 'christian' to communicate with the dead.

Your insistence on the single word, GRAVEN, show exactly how interested you are in the wider context of things.

Plus, you rebuttals to Biblical arguments presented against your claims seem to constitute of constantly repeating the same lines over and over, as if you thought that repeating the same line again makes it more true. As a result, this discussion really isn't leading anywhere, and I completely understand that Free bowed out.

Well grasshopper ,since you dont like my posts quit reading them

To answer your question to him; was it lawful for an Isrealite to make and/or own such an image?

As Free said, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest it would be unlawful, unless you consider the verses you love to repeat, when taken out of context (which makes them invalid proof). If you want some proof that actually the Jews themselves did not interpret it that way, read up on the Dura-Europos synagogue.

 

[reba]

I am not telling you to listen to my opinions, I am asking you to reexamine the Bible, in its own context. Which would have been clear if you didn't take what I wrote out of context. It seems to be a thing you are quite good at.

Context is exactly what my statement was about.

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
One verse of many
Exo 25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
Exo 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
Exo 25:19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
Exo 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
Exo 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
Read them in context.

 

[JacobBoheme]

Those were commanded/requested by God to be built.

I agree. The prohibition of the 2nd commandment was intended to prevent idolatry and this wasn't idolatry. Simply wearing a cross isn't idolatry either. If one takes the 2nd so strictly that it bans all religious imagery then God becomes one of the culprits involved in breaking it. The fact that God orders such things shows that there is more nuance to it than that. If one goes to extremes in the anti-iconic idea (looking less to the spirit and more to the letter) the early Christians would have be idolaters simply because they marked their places of worship in the catacombs with fish symbols.