10 Hilarious (or embarrassing) Nativity Sets

Get epic articles in your inbox daily!

  • I think #1 deserves its own blog post.

  • Fr Eric

    Even the baby Jesus dog is a golden retriever.

  • Rob B.

    #3 is pretty awesome.

  • Henry Craft

    I like #7. It suggests the enthusiastic
    participation of a nine year old.

  • Pingback: 10 Hilarious (or Embarrassing) Nativity Sets - BigPulpit.com()

  • MaryRoseM

    O.k., you can say I have no sense of humor but I see nothing humorous about these “nativity scenes”.

  • Maria

    A nativity scene, of any kind, is blasphemy. Nativity scenes distort the truth—not only because Christians cannot know what Jesus looked like (and depicting anything but the exactness of his appearance is a lie) but because Jesus, his very body, was the image of God! He told us to not make images of him, to not be like the pagans who illustrate their gods. YHWH wants to mold us into his image, instead of this vain/useless practice. It is NOT our place to make images of him!

    • Psalm 115:2-4 (NIV)

    2 Why do the nations say,
    “Where is their God?”
    3 Our God is in heaven;
    he does whatever pleases him.
    4 But their idols are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.

    • Deuteronomy 12:30-31 (NIV)

    30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

    • Deuteronomy 4:15-18 (NIV)

    15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.

    • Colossians 1:15 (NIV)

    15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

    • Romans 8:29 (NIV)

    29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

    • Colossians 3:5-10 (NIV)

    5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[a] 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

    Footnotes:

    a. Colossians 3:6 Some early manuscripts coming on those who are disobedient

    If any Christians are doing this: REPENT OF YOUR NATIVITY SCENE MAKING. You’re distorting his reputation and what his commands actually say by engaging in this practice. You cannot worship God your own way. Only his way. And the way is narrow. Stop making images of God!

    • Shaun McAfee

      Or I’ll ask you the same question here. What Church do you belong to?

    • Danielck

      Unfortunately Maria, you are a very, very negative person and cannot be taken seriously. Though your parents (I assume) beautifully named you. May you one day see the beauty of the Nativity scene.

      • Romulus

        Not on this page.

        • Danielck

          ?????

      • Maria

        My name quite literally means “bitter” (from the Hebrew, “Miryam”). Upon seeing others belittle the Word of God, and nullify God’s commands, for the sake of their tradition, how appropriate my name becomes. Such practices that violate God’s commands are a source of grief / bitterness of spirit—just like Esau caused Isaac and Rebekah for marrying into the Canaanites (Genesis 26:35). The Hebrew there, translated as grief, is literally, “morat”, bitter: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/26-35.htm

        I guess you don’t take God seriously when he’s “very, very, negative” in his dealings with sin. Sin is the transgression of our Heavenly Father’s law. God is “very, very negative” when he condemns these acts. I’m not making words up. I quoted the bible, his laws, his psalms. How hostile you are to God’s word.

        Your carnality and focus on beauty is the problem: whatever happened to meaning? definition? God’s definition? whatever happened to caring about whether or not an act or practice actually conforms to God’s commands? You will not find a single verse saying, “make images of me, your God”, but plenty verses of God condemning such an act. Thus, the passages I quoted above.

        The Nativity Scene has an image of God. It is a sin (a transgression of God’s law). And since you’ve never seen God, whatever is drawn/sculpted is not reflective of what he looks like, in truth, thus it is a lie. Using lies to worship the way, the truth and the life…? Let it not be. Using sin to worship God? Let it not be.

    • Bershawn300

      We’re in dense theological territory already and I’m not a theologian, simply a run-of-the-mill Christian who will attempt to give it a go. There are a number of errors here.

      “Christians cannot know what Jesus looked like.” Are you saying St. Paul did not know what Jesus looked like? Peter? James? Thomas? Matthew? Mary? Joseph? There were hundreds of others whom Scripture attests saw Jesus both before He was crucified and after He was resurrected.

      You are saying essentially that Scripture verses such as I Cor. 15 are not true. However, I Cor. 15 describes well:”after that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time.” Jesus appeared to many in a visual, physical way. Early Christians did indeed know what Jesus looked like.

      OT Scripture clearly says people cannot make images of God. God the Father is spirit – and His worshippers must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

      But God became Incarnate — means that God Himself took on a visible, visceral form — to show us God in the flesh. It was God the Father’s wish to make Jesus, God the Son, known in a sensory and visual, human form. God the Son is God and the image of God. This is clearly accounted for in the NT.

      So by making a visual image, Christians are merely celebrating the image that was already given to the world–Jesus’ incarnate Person, already given and made available in a sensory form by God Himself! It is the Trinity’s wish to give us Jesus in such a visceral way. It is God the Father’s wish for us to know the Son as INCARNATE.

      All Christians are doing is placing ‘reminders’ — like photographs of family members around a house — of God Incarnate, the One who was already corporeally and viscerally revealed by His Father. We are not confusing the picture with the actual Savior just as we are not making an image or idol of God the Father.

      If a person didn’t believe in the Incarnation your post would make sense.

      But since the Incarnation happened, it doesn’t.

      (Jehovah’s Witness perhaps?)

  • Pingback: "Is This Supposed to be Funny?"()

  • Maria

    Hello Bershawn. Where I disagree is here: a picture we make of Jesus is not, and never will be, the actual incarnate Jesus. His flesh is the image of God. Not something we do with our hands—but that God made with his. We’re not allowed to make images of him with our own hands, even if it’s an image of the image he made himself (of his body).

    Comparing it to photographs is dishonest because a photograph captures the exactness, the reality of what your family member looks like. The cartoons, depicting him with bear statues, sketches, paintings, action figures, does not do that. Secondly, it is blasphemy to depict him as a bear or some other idol (super hero, fictional character, how disrespectful is that? what do believers communicate about him when they do this? That he’s just another myth and figment of our imagination? Blasphemy. No respect. It is a mockery to treat the holy in this way).

    When I said, “Christians cannot know what Jesus looked like”, I’m not referring to the people who had legitimate visions of Jesus. Having visions of Jesus is one thing, trying to capture that in image form with your own hands however is another and is sin (God has already depicted himself through his son’s body; that is all we need; and he told us not to make images of him. We cannot place more importance on tradition especially when it contradicts his commands).

    And by saying “Christians cannot know what Jesus looked like” taken in context of my entire post, I’m talking about Christians like you and me, or let me speak for myself rather: I have not seen visions of Jesus, and though I can draw, I do not have the artistic ability to depict his likeness as accurate as a photograph: whatever I come up with will be misleading and a lie. And ultimately, he doesn’t want images representing him: his body / incarnation is it. I agree with the incarnation. Where you and I disagree: let’s leave it at the incarnation because we’re not allowed to depict God through our own images.

    I already answered McAfee’s question on a separate article. I’m not a part of a denomination.

  • Bershawn300

    Dear sister in Christ, I too would like for us to be true to God. In the OT, the ark of the covenant in the specifically had statues of angels on it. These statues were specifically dictated by YHWH in Exodus and Leviticus that they be there. How do you explain the presence of statues of angels on the ark of the covenant if God outlawed all image-making?

    I understand your zeal for the Lord, but please know that it is only idolatry that condemned in the OT, not merely making a picture or statue. Further, Colossians says that Jesus is the image of the unseen God. If people were worshipping statues or nativity scenes THAT would be idolatry. But merely using a nativity to remind oneself of the preciousness of Christ’s birth is not.

    Ironically, it is Protestants who created the ‘man-made tradition’ of no images in their churches. The man-made tradition (of iconoclasm) originated in about the 1500s. It was mostly the doing of John Calvin. Those who followed Luther were not as iconoclastic.

    Before the 1500s, pictures — like photographs of a family around a house — were there to remind one of Christ and of stories from the Bible. Images and relics date back to the time of Christ. God bless.

    • Maria

      The angels are not representing God himself! You’re glossing over my very specific statement.

  • Gradus Quia

    #9. Bauhaus. Form follows function. And mostly, they just sit there, unless packed in their box the other 50 weeks of the year.

  • Pingback: You Won't Believe These Nativity Sets - Part III – EpicPew()