Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Pictures of god

09df70ed7cf2ae8319c6be9aee6635c1.jpg


King of kings. Lord of Lords. Conquering lion of the tribe of judah.
 
Jewish pictures of God also thin on the ground because of the Second Commandment (no graven images). According to Wiki, Jewish law hedged about the Commandment by arguing this applied mostly only to actually making and worshipping idols, not on any pictorial art - so making images of God is not encouraged, but not forbidden - but hardline and ultra Orthodox bods are still very down on any sort of depictions. Islam just takes it further, so sees depicting God as not just forbidden but gratuitously offensive, even if it's not Muslims doing it. (But see also: Reformation mobs smashing up European Catholic art.)

The earliest image of Christian God as that white-bearded patriarchal bloke I can think of is Michelangelo - but what about earlier? Where does this convention come from? Are those deft little sidesteps, of just a heavenly hand or a big ray of light from an early UFO, signs that Christian artists were also a bit uneasy about how to draw God?
 
...

The earliest image of Christian God as that white-bearded patriarchal bloke I can think of is Michelangelo - but what about earlier? Where does this convention come from? Are those deft little sidesteps, of just a heavenly hand or a big ray of light from an early UFO, signs that Christian artists were also a bit uneasy about how to draw God?
Those last two i posted are from 13th century manuscripts with a beardie God
 
...but what about earlier? Where does this convention come from? Are those deft little sidesteps, of just a heavenly hand or a big ray of light from an early UFO, signs that Christian artists were also a bit uneasy about how to draw God?

A conventional image of Jesus was established much earlier (earliest examples from the 1st Century). Whether Jesus existed, or not, most agree someone existed. Descriptions could be based on real stories, or total bullshit. But, a recognisable Jesus image had been established. So, you have to assume that others assumed God would look a bit like him, but much older. You can see the family resemblance in some pictures.
 
Yes. Seems to be an absolutely undoubted fact that he was bearded.

I suppose once an image had been established it was never going to vary too much. Believers need a truth to believe. Once they've been 'sold' the image anything else would be heresy. Personally, I find it interesting when discussing art in general with Christian believers - they have much more appreciation for skill, craftsmanship and pictorial 'correctness' than they do for more esoteric art, or abstract imagery. They seem to struggle with the idea of abstract expressionism of spirituality in art generally far more than believers of many other faiths. Yet, they are very willing to believe absurd stories that someone like myself find totally insane.
 
Or could have been just making images of themselves. Chaps of antiquity - Hebrew chaps at that - were likely bearded. An image of (a male) god would have been been a bloke with a beard.
 
A conventional image of Jesus was established much earlier (earliest examples from the 1st Century). Whether Jesus existed, or not, most agree someone existed. Descriptions could be based on real stories, or total bullshit. But, a recognisable Jesus image had been established. So, you have to assume that others assumed God would look a bit like him, but much older. You can see the family resemblance in some pictures.
And that image could have been based on this fella? Mithras

images-5.jpg
 
And that image could have been based on this fella? Mithras

My guess would be no. It was an entirely different belief that didn't really have much influence on Christianity.

Mithraism

There are plenty of theories of course, but they don't tie in with what most religious historians believe to my way of reading. I don't doubt at all that pagan beliefs were adopted into Christianity, but this guy doesn't have a beard!

You can play around with many beliefs and God theories until they all become the same eventually for good reasons.
 
Very nice.

For those who don't know try Googling Hubble and Pillars of Creation.

--/ It actually looks more like a fantasy painting than anything else on this thread.
 
....but hardline and ultra Orthodox bods are still very down on any sort of depictions. Islam just takes it further, so sees depicting God as not just forbidden but gratuitously offensive, even if it's not Muslims doing it.
Im no expert on Islam but I think its true that there are a range of traditions within Islam and the "gratuitous offence" is, I think, a relatively modern thing that comes from Wahhabism, or if it existed in earlier times certainly not in a universal manner...

Those sensory overload mosques seem to reflect that more transcendental/sensory tradition
 
Back
Top Bottom