A Picture of Jesus

[bbyrd009]

"Seed" does have a physical and a spiritual meaning,
and I guess is the crux of any argument.
In the end, seed is seed, so it seems to pale kinda.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And why slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Not the one I was looking for, it is reflected in other spots.
But if you think this is only meant spiritually, that is fine;
The physical reality of it is just a model for me, that explains
"eating the fruit," and the 3 earth ages, and Ish...and surely
my understanding is incomplete here also.

His heart was wicked. His physicality was not from Satan, it was from Adam.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Timmy

I disagree!

You would!!

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—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; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” Exodus 20:4-6

It looks to me like there is scripture.

That was the one that I was considering. Although, there are other verses in the prophets that also deal with this topic.

Originally Posted by acerrak

a graven image was a object carved from wood or stoned and was worshiped. this was considered idolatry.

if making a picture of Jesus was considered idolatry, those saints that hid in the catacombs of Ephesus who fled persecution in fears of being gladiator sport meat, they didn't seem to think so, since they drew pictures on the walls of the cave

I am not stating that all imagery is sinful (I love photography). However, I am not certain as to the advisability of creating images of Christ. If He were just another wise teacher like Buddha, Confucius, Moses, the prophets, etc. I would be less likely to take issue with it. However, we are guilty of attempting to depict our God in an image. This leads others to feel it acceptable to make their own imagery even if it profanes the Lord we worship. Thus, I have become leery of such depictions of Jesus.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Well, don't know about possessed, but
both A&E were fallen, so...until I hear a better explanation
than biting an apple, and with my current understanding
of "the fruit of," serpent seed works quite well
as a model, all other Scripture taken in to account.

I'm sure thi is diff for everyone, but it was the refutation
of serpent seed that I found most lacking. Really, I don't
think it's pivotal to anyone's indwelling of Spirit or anything.

The serpent seed doctrine as I understand it is that some humans are descendants of Adam and Eve and others are descendants of satan and eve. The descendants of satan and eve have existed along side with the descendants of Adam and Eve and at least one person on the ark was part of the serpent's seed so that seed continues until today. Those who are of the serpent's seed can never be saved so at all times there are those around us who can get saved and others who can never get saved.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Jay

You would!!

That was the one that I was considering. Although, there are other verses in the prophets that also deal with this topic.

I am not stating that all imagery is sinful (I love photography). However, I am not certain as to the advisability of creating images of Christ. If He were just another wise teacher like Buddha, Confucius, Moses, the prophets, etc. I would be less likely to take issue with it. However, we are guilty of attempting to depict our God in an image. This leads others to feel it acceptable to make their own imagery even if it profanes the Lord we worship. Thus, I have become leery of such depictions of Jesus.

Any picture of Jesus is wrong for the simple reason that Jesus did not look like that picture.
Anything that is not true is a lie.

The prohibition about images applies to any image, whether the image be a carving, a painting or a photograph. the prohibition is about creating any likeness.

Images is what the pagans had, early Christians often were accused of being atheists because they had no images of their god, like the pagans did.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Any picture of Jesus is wrong for the simple reason that Jesus did not look like that picture.
Anything that is not true is a lie.

The prohibition about images applies to any image, whether the image be a carving, a painting or a photograph. the prohibition is about creating any likeness.

Images is what the pagans had, early Christians often were accused of being atheists because they had no images of their god, like the pagans did.

included in the law that forbade the making of images were instructions on how to build the ark of the covenant which included a lid with cherubim upon it. Also, at one point in time a serpent of brass was built by God's direction so people could look at it by faith and be healed of snakebite.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Sam

included in the law that forbade the making of images were instructions on how to build the ark of the covenant which included a lid with cherubim upon it. Also, at one point in time a serpent of brass was built by God's direction so people could look at it by faith and be healed of snakebite.

If you read further in the scriptures, you will see that the serpent of brass became a sacrilege, that the righheous king Josiah had to destroy.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If you read further in the scriptures, you will see that the serpent of brass became a sacrilege, that the righheous king Josiah had to destroy.

It was King Hezekiah who ruled from 715-686 BC who destroyed the serpent which had become an object of worship. 2 Kings 18:4

[strait shooter]

To believe the serpent seed doctrine you have to, as one Branhamite told me "read between the lines"...well I refuse to build doctrine by "reading between the lines"

It is not supportable in scripture and has to come from "revelation" which is where Branham supposedly got it.

you have to change fruit to seed and ignore scripture that plainly states that Cain came from a sexual union of Adam and Eve.

What next??...a teaching that Lilith was really the 1st wife of Adam????

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Well, don't know about possessed, but
both A&E were fallen, so...until I hear a better explanation
than biting an apple, and with my current understanding
of "the fruit of," serpent seed works quite well
as a model, all other Scripture taken in to account.

I'm sure thi is diff for everyone, but it was the refutation
of serpent seed that I found most lacking. Really, I don't
think it's pivotal to anyone's indwelling of Spirit or anything.

your telling us your belief but your not showing it to us through scripture. we must be carefull to not do such things.

the fruit was not evil, the act of disobeying God was evil. niether adam and eve was possed with the devil nore does it ever say that the seperent put a seed in eve and thus cain was born.

It does say that adam fathered a child. who when born was named cain. Im still not sure how peopl eget the devil seed in eve there is nothing linking to or relating to it. now if you want to talk about spiritually then i can understand cause scripture talks about the fallen state of man.

But never does it imply that satan plants a seed in eve to produce cain.