B
Bluegoat
Guest
camera obscuraIf Leonardo had a camera, it was well hidden… this is a load of baloney!
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
That isn’t entirely accurate. The East has a very definite opinion on depicting Christ in a way that suggests his appearance is irrelevant.Christ is painted in many different ways and it’s not important.
If you go to the far East, he looks Chinese. If you go to Africa, he looks black. If you go into the Sistine Chapel he looks Greek and so forth.
The truth is that he was a semite. Semites have dark wavy hair, dark eyes, olive complexion and often have pronounced noses.
It has always been a mystery to me why Jesus’ physical appearance is not a concern to clergy, religious and theologians, but it seems to be a concern for everyone else. Do we live in two different worlds? I hope not.
The important thing is that he was truly human and had very human features. He had a genetic code, like every other human being and yet we don’t know how this was possible, since he did not have a human father. He took his physical looks from that genetic map.
Accuracy is not important. Veneration is important.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Easterners, as a people, Christian or other, are very sensitive to such things. But this is a local concern, not a concern of the universal Church. It’s not something that Eastern and Western theologians spend to much time discussing. There are a few books on the subject, but it’s not a theological area of concern. In Christology, which is the branch of theology that focuses in on Christ himself, his physicial attributes are not important, other than to know that he has all of the attributes of a human being, because he is truly man. Once you have established that point, Christology moves on to the important questions about Jesus Christ: identity, mission, historical existence, hypostaci union, the heresies around Jesus, his work and teachings, what was beleived about him and transmitted by the Apostles.
In religious life, the focus is on his mission, teachings, and his relationship with the Father and the world.
These areas are very important and are food for the spiritual life. His appearance neither adds not detracts from the spiritual life. Therefore, it’s not really addressed in theology and in religious life.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
FM927
Guest
If we are created in God’s image, then why don’t we all have the same basic face features?
Why so many different skin colors?
Just wondering!!!
Why so many different skin colors?
Just wondering!!!
D
Dorothy
Guest
It is my understanding that being created in God’s image has nothing to do with what we look like as a human. It has to do with the fact that we have intellect and free will. God is pure spirit. The Incarnation didn’t take place for thousands of years since the creation of man.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
But dosent the word “image” necessarily imply something that is capable of being seen. Neither our soul/free will is capable of being seen with the naked eye.
C
Christine85
Guest
I have heard that according to modern science, that Jesus was crucified through his wrists because they would not have done it through the hands because the hands could not hold the weight of the entire body, Thoughts?
C
Christine85
Guest
oh I see someone has already spoken about that…
J
JReducation
Guest
To be created in God’s image is not about being physically similar to God. Let us remember the words of Genesis, “Let Us, create man in OUR image and likeness.” The God-head is pure spirit. Only the second person of the Trinity is human and he had not become incarnate at the moment of creation. The question becomes, how is man created in God’s image?
We can look to the Fathers of the Church for the answer. St. Gregory of Nyssa said, “You have within yourselves the standard by which to apprehend the divine.” Only God can apprehend the divine; however, he has endowed human nature with this quality.
St. Augustine asked, “What then am I, O God? What is my nature?” He answers, “A varied and multiform life of powerful immensity.” Who else is a varied and multiform life of powerful immensity, if not God?
Then we have Lactantius who said, “God willed this to be the nature of man: that he should eagerly desire two things: religion and wisdom.” So God instills in our nature the same desires a he has: religion, from re-legio, that which connects and unifies over and over again. God is the God of oneness and he desires unite . . . wisdom from divine knowledge.
Like this, if we go through Scripture and the Fathers, we find that we are created in God’s divine image.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
We can look to the Fathers of the Church for the answer. St. Gregory of Nyssa said, “You have within yourselves the standard by which to apprehend the divine.” Only God can apprehend the divine; however, he has endowed human nature with this quality.
St. Augustine asked, “What then am I, O God? What is my nature?” He answers, “A varied and multiform life of powerful immensity.” Who else is a varied and multiform life of powerful immensity, if not God?
Then we have Lactantius who said, “God willed this to be the nature of man: that he should eagerly desire two things: religion and wisdom.” So God instills in our nature the same desires a he has: religion, from re-legio, that which connects and unifies over and over again. God is the God of oneness and he desires unite . . . wisdom from divine knowledge.
Like this, if we go through Scripture and the Fathers, we find that we are created in God’s divine image.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
patrick457
Guest
That has been the popular opinion since the 1930s when Dr. Pierre Barbet conducted experiments. Recently, however, Dr. Frederick Zugibe has defended and proved the viability of the traditional location, pointing out that many of Barbet’s methods and conclusions were flawed.
F
Fiasco
Guest
Yes and no!
Over the years, I
ve purchased a number of books about the Shroud, the later ones mentioning McCrone, so I was aware of him and his stance. Id also come across his web site over the last four years while looking for updates on Shroud research. He obviously wanted the whole world to know his views. 
For what it
s worth, my own conviction is that its authentic. Theres too much evidence in its favor, including details which dont at first make sense, but do make sense after careful analysis.As Patrick mentions, Dr Pierre Barbet
s book "A Doctor at Calvary" has some flawed conclusions, but its worth reading as long as you keep its faults in mind. Theres a heap on line, though. Just stay away from Joe Nickell: hes a fan of McCrone! 
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
The images of Christ have remained fairly consistent from the earliest times. I’m sure that at some point an second century image will be found bearing his image. The only western feature depicted in 19th century art of Christ tends to be blue eye,s though this I think was done to signify his Royal blood. Depictions of King David however always seem to show very strong :twocents::nerd:western features.
P
patrick457
Guest
Not exactly.
1.) Young, beardless Jesus with short hair
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7467/womanwell.jpg
http://www.arthist.umn.edu/aict/images/medieval/EC/250/33.jpg
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6114/800px1407milanoslorenzo.jpg
2.) Beardless Jesus with long hair
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9601/meisterdesmausoleumsder.jpg
3.) Bearded Jesus with short hair
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/967/6thsinaipantocrator.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4467/solidusjustinianiichris.jpg
http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/faces/faces_black_jesus3.jpg
The first two images in variant 3 (an icon and a coin from Justinian II’s reign, both from the 6th century) is the most intriguing for me. These are specimens of an artistic fad during the Byzantine period in portraying Jesus with ‘Semitic’ features such as a beard and a short, curly (almost frizzy) hair which coexisted with the ‘standard’ long-haired depiction we know today.
This depiction of a shorter-haired Jesus also enjoyed the support of some personages, such as Theodorus Lector in the early 6th centuy, who once recorded the story of a certain painter who painted an icon of Christ “in the likeness of Zeus” (tou en taxei Dios) for a pagan (‘Hellene’) patron in Constantinople, whereupon his hands withered. It wasn’t until Gennadius I (Patriarch of Constantinople 458-471) prayed for the painter that his punishment was relieved. St. John of Damascus quotes this story, and adds the description: “the hair on the head was painted as dividing on either side so that the eyes were not hidden. For in such manner, the Greeks painted their Zeus.” He goes further: “The historian says that the other type of the Savior, the curly and short-haired (to oulon kai oligotrichon), is more truthful.”
This has led some writers to opine that one possible root of the longer-haired Jesus in iconography is the portraiture of Zeus (the statue of Zeus at Olympia was believed by some to be at Constantinople during the earlier half of the 5th century, where it was destroyed in the great fire of the Lauseion in 475), but it cannot have been convincingly solely derived only from there, since the exact iconography of Christ’s long hair seems to deviate from that of Zeus as well. This issue is also brought up in a text attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis, which also complains about depictions of Jesus with long hair - based on what the author believes to be an illogical opinion: that since Christ was called a Nazarene, He ought to have long hair (cf. Nazarite). Another theory is that the (other) source for the long-haired depictions of Jesus is the Mandylion of Edessa - sometimes connected with the Shroud of Turin.
Some iconophile writers during the 9th century even go on to describe that in paintings and mosaics in the Holy Land Constantine the Great depicted our Lord “as the ancients described, with eyebrows that joined+, fine eyes, a long nose, frizzy hair, flesh tones like His Mother’s, the color of wheat.” This description eventually became more detailed as time went on (Epiphanius the Monk describes Jesus in very detailed terms - for example He is now described as being a handsome man, six feet tall with not-too thick blondish lightly waved hair and beard, clear and beautiful eyes, a long nose, black eyebrows, a slightly-bent neck, and a face pointed towards the chin)*.
- This corresponds with St. Andrew of Crete’s rather dubious citation of Josephus which supposedly says Jesus had “meeting eyebrows”!
- I think this might be also where the roots of the medieval Publius Lentulus letter might lie.
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
Christ being a Nazirite would have made a vow to cut or shave his hair once a year when visiting the temple. The hair would be placed in the fire with the offering.They also had to refrain from wine and grape based products and other intoxicating products after the passover meal, that is why Christ refused the vinegar and hyssop whilst hanging on the cross, it was not an act of kindness by the Roman soldier but a last cruel temptation.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are two possibilities here and both would have been allowed by Jewish law. Because his mother was Nazarene, he could have followed the Nazarene customs. However, because he himself was from Bethlehem of Judea, he could have followed those customs, which were a little different.
The wording of the prophecy is very important. “He shall be called a Nazarene,” rather than “He shall be a Nazarene.” The prophets are very careful to mention Bethlehem of Judea so that there would be no mistake about being from David’s line. Those people were slightly different from the Nazarene, even in appearance, not only customs. The Nazarene people are very Semitic looking: olive complexion, curly hair, usually very dark, very dark eyes, usually small. Taller than most Palestinians.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, we don’t know for sure whether Jesus was really a Nazirite. That idea mostly rests on an interpretation of the epithet ‘Nazarene’/‘Nazorean’ applied to Jesus.
I’m with you on the ‘vinegar’ - posca, a beverage made of sour wine (which is where the word ‘vinegar’ comes from: French vin aigre ‘sour wine’!) and water, sometimes with additional ingredients for flavoring - on the sponge as mockery (especially considering the words “Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down” and ancient Roman toilet bottom-wipers - sponges on sticks), but the Gospels never state that Jesus rejected it (what He refused to drink was the earlier offer of wine with myrrh/bile). In fact, John says that “when Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, ‘Consummated’.” Also, there’s the incident during the wedding feast in Cana and that slander against Jesus: “For John came neither eating vnor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”
H
HelenRose
Guest
Even if it were not Christ, why call the shroud a “hoax”? A hoax implies deceit. It could be a number of other things. For instance, a devout artist’s rendition and vision of Christ’s death. I am always amazed that people can assume to know the motivation a person who lived hundreds of years ago.
You state that this technology existed hundreds of years ago. What other items from that period of time demonstrate this technique? Please show us examples. I would find that very interesting.
H
HelenRose
Guest
As for the original question: does accuracy matter?
I would say yes and no.
Yes as a matter of historical curiosity.
No as a matter of artistic spiritual vision.
In this situation for me, artistic spiritual vision is far more important.
I would say yes and no.
Yes as a matter of historical curiosity.
No as a matter of artistic spiritual vision.
In this situation for me, artistic spiritual vision is far more important.
H
HelenRose
Guest
H
HelenRose
Guest
- Status