Are Pictures of Christ Unbiblical?

Question

Pictures of our Lord cannot sanctify because they flow from the imagination of the artist and thus are fiction.

How can they teach the truth by setting a lie by a human fantasy, a fictional rendering before the eyes of children?

Answer 1

no, why would you think that?

_________

honestly, i think you are taking the pictures too literily. if what you say is true, were the disciples unbiblical because they say the real face of Jesus?

Answer 2

This is a VERY good question! The Bible does teach us not to worship any idols. There are also statues of Jesus as well. How can anyone know what he looked like? I'm not sure if it's un-biblical but it's definitely on the borderline. Also ... there are MANY pictures and statues of female angels yet there is not a single female angel mentioned in the Bible. Only three are mentioned, all males. Michael, the arch angel is mention. Gabriel is mentioned as well. Can you, or anybody, tell me the third angel mentioned in the Bible? If you can just e-mail me. I do know the answer and if you don't know you will be surprised.

Answer 3

No one knows what Christ looked like. The Bible itself never contained any pictures of anything. They were added to some Bibles and of course some history books. So pictures of Christ are not Bibical; but they are not evil or wrong either. Just imaginations of people who feel the need to draw what Christ may have looked like.

Answer 4

Well, based on the information that we take from the bible, the pictures that you see of Jesus as a white man with long brown hair are probably inaccutae.

Jesus Christ most likely looked middle-eastern (like Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein). It's also possible that he was black.

Answer 5

The are visual depictions of how the artist imagined Jesus the Christ to have looked. They were influenced by the popular painting styles of the era in which they were painted.

Answer 6

Seldom realistic and total unimportant. Jesus was a Jew but is most often pictured as a straight nosed, blue eyed Gentile. Is it a sin to display a picture of Him? No. Of course not.

Answer 7

The blinde haired, blue eyed Jesus that is popular in churches is a misrepresentation of Jesus may have loked like. People who are born in Nazereth tend to be olive complected with dark hair and dark eyes. In the book of revelations it says Jesus had hands and feet the color of brass and hair like wet sheeps wool!

The images of Jesus we see today are a product of Slavery when White slave masters took slaves and indoctrinated the black slaves into believeing that Jesus was whit, thus God was white, ergo white people are the image of God.

Answer 8

Pictures showing him as a white man are wrong. He was a middle eastern Jew with dark skin.

Revelation tells how he looks now: white hair and eyes of fire.

Answer 9

Yes. All "pictures" we have are only artist's renditions of their perception of what Christ looked like.
His teachings are more important than what he looked like.

Answer 10

Yes. It is actually forbidden in the Ten Commandments.

No one has any idea what Jesus looked like and any attempt to make images of Him are presumptuous, if not disrespectful.

Answer 11

I don't believe the pictures are accurate. I perceive him as a really strong and tough example of masculinity, not the the little sissified, feminized images you see on the church wall.