Jump to content

Jesus Anime


karludy
 Share

Recommended Posts

karludy wrote:

: If you take it at its most literal meaning then the bronze snake made my Moses was a breaking of this commandment, and possibly even the cherubim on the ark.

Exactly.

Incidentally, it appears to be only Protestants and Orthodox who consider the "graven images" bit to be a commandment unto itself. Jews and Catholics (and Lutherans?) regard it as a sub-set of the command against worshipping other gods.

The Orthodox believe passionately in icons and the veneration thereof, of course. However, we don't have statues, as the Catholics do. But as you note, the Jews did make the bronze serpent and the cherubim on the Ark, as per God's instructions. (Then again, the bronze serpent eventually had to be destroyed, by Hezekiah, because the Jews had begun to regard it idolatrously, far beyond the proper veneration for which it had been intended.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons that Calvin rejected the use of images was his incorrect knowledge of the early Church. From Calvin's Institutes #1 Chapter 11 section 13:

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9). Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness.

We have learned a lot since then, particularly how images were used in the early church. WE have examples as far back as the 2nd century.

I was fortunate to get to see an exhibit of Christian art from exactly this time period that Calvin denies exist last spring in Forth Worth. Truly amazing works of art! There is an excellent catalog from the exhibit.

The whole idea of a purer church that did not use images doesn't hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second commandment says:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them ..."

I wonder how you think we should apply this. If you take it at its most literal meaning then the bronze snake made my Moses was a breaking of this commandment, and possibly even the cherubim on the ark.

And this interpretation would have implications for many fields. Is photography by definition a breaking of this commandment? Is depicting any living thing then breaking this commandment? What about my children's drawings? what about the fish signs on all the Christians' cars - are they breaking this commandment too?

I would think that this commandment in rather saying that we should not worship these things, not that we should not represent them in art.

I would argue that the second commandment is a warning against both pagan practises of animal worship and animal representations of God (so, for example, it is forbidden to depict Christ symbolically as something like a fish or a lamb).

One of the main reasons that Calvin rejected the use of images was his incorrect knowledge of the early Church. From Calvin's Institutes #1 Chapter 11 section 13:

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9). Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness.

We have learned a lot since then, particularly how images were used in the early church. WE have examples as far back as the 2nd century.

I was fortunate to get to see an exhibit of Christian art from exactly this time period that Calvin denies exist last spring in Forth Worth. Truly amazing works of art! There is an excellent catalog from the exhibit.

The whole idea of a purer church that did not use images doesn't hold water.

I don't have the sufficient time or smarts to ascertain if Calvin is right or wrong about the early church. I find the second commandment to be clear regardless. Because it is impossible for a true Christian to think about God without worshipping him in his heart, it is always sinful to depict God in a painting or a film, etc. That way lies idolatry.

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Invisible Man wrote:

: Because it is impossible for a true Christian to think about God without worshipping him in his heart, it is always sinful to depict God in a painting or a film, etc. That way lies idolatry.

And it is NOT sinful to depict him in a written form ... why? (What do you do with all the novels and novelizations of the gospels out there, or with things like The Chronicles of Narnia, where Aslan is pretty clearly made out to be not merely an allegorical counterpart to Christ but Christ himself in Narnian form?)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Invisible Man wrote:

: Because it is impossible for a true Christian to think about God without worshipping him in his heart, it is always sinful to depict God in a painting or a film, etc. That way lies idolatry.

And it is NOT sinful to depict him in a written form ... why? (What do you do with all the novels and novelizations of the gospels out there, or with things like The Chronicles of Narnia, where Aslan is pretty clearly made out to be not merely an allegorical counterpart to Christ but Christ himself in Narnian form?)

A good question. It's not something that I have ever considered. Is it idolatrous to picture God in our mind as the lion Aslan? Hmmm... I'm thinking that it must be, but I seriously need to sleep on it. :)

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ok, ok, I am a little behind on the boards but I am trying to catch up. I was perusing through the filmmakers posts and came across an old ICVM conversation, which prompted my to go check out what they were up to these days. This is when I discovered the Jesus in the Anime. I immediately logged in to see what might be here and sure enough you all were right on top of things.

I have read over a couple posts and it sounds like a lot of interesting and thought provoking conversation.

...the kind of film criticism we do. We are talking about life, and more than that the possibility of abundant life." -M.Leary

"Dad, how does she move in mysterious ways?"" -- Jude (my 5-year-old, after listening to Mysterious Ways)

[once upon a time known here as asher]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...