Jesus did not look like a bearded lady

[Della]

Yes, we can be certain IF – and that’s a big IF – we accept the biblical revelation. The proof is right there in the Bible for all to see.

And how do you know the Bible is God’s word and therefore reliable? I will tell you how, because the Catholic Church compiled the books of the Bible and said it is God’s word. You need to read a bit of history, dear friend: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

What about this: Can you be certain that Christ is not black [not a Negro]?

The Bible, the book you trust implicitly although you don’t know why , says that Jesus was born of the Jews of the house of David. Believe me, he wasn’t black. He was Semitic not Negroid.

I agree with you that the Catholic Magisterium has made no statement regarding Jesus’ appearance and so its faithful are free to picture Him as they please. In fact, the Magisterium has said very little about the truthfulness of most of what is written in the Bible. But that is not good; because what it tells you is that your church does not have the truth.

It tells us no such thing. It tells us the Church is not willing to make pronouncements about things Jesus did not teach it. The Church is not in the business of making useless speculations, it’s in the business of giving what Jesus commissioned it to the world.

But your church, as you have just said, leaves you free to picture Christ as you please; it has left you to decide how Christ looks. So why should you now say we leave that up to the church?

We should leave up to the Church to decide if it’s important to know what Jesus looked like or not. And since it’s not important–not part of the revelation of the Son of Man to the world, the Church does not say and need not say.

As a FORMER Catholic I KNOW that Catholics pray to images. We were taught in school that Catholics don’t pray to images – but that’s just in school. In actual practice, Catholics do pray to images. I did. My wife does and still do today. And I don’t know of any Catholic (in my circle of friends and family) who does not pray to images.

I say this in all kindness, you are a former Catholic who knows what he as surmised from his own way of thinking/been told by non-Catholics what Catholics are doing when they venerate an image of Christ or the Saints. As a convert to the Catholic Church I can tell you I don’t pray to images. They are helps/aids to my faith just as the images in the Temple were to the people of Israel. That’s right images used in the worship of the Jews–images God himself ordered be made. Look it up for yourself in Leviticus.

If images are so bad, then you’d better take down any pictures you have of Jesus and please don’t put out a Nativity scene at Christmas. :tsktsk:

 

[patrick457]

If images are so bad, then you’d better take down any pictures you have of Jesus and please don’t put out a Nativity scene at Christmas. :tsktsk:

Well, he probably doesn’t have any. But then again, if that’s the case, at least he’s fortunately consistent about it.

 

[Della]

Well, he probably doesn’t have any. But then again, if that’s the case, at least he’s fortunately consistent about it.

Any virtue in a storm, eh?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I find this image beautifully shows Christ’s humility without compromising his manliness.

I agree. I would put his hair lighter, as I, like another poster, have read about the chestnut hair. I strongly disagree with the depiction in Post #2, which was recently surmised by some researchers. Lots of people confuse the later, dark “mediterranean” look with that of First Century Palestine, but the darker, dominant genes appeared after more widespread intermarriage. The same was true of the Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe. Prior to intermarriage they were actually fair-skinned, light-haired, blue-eyed. I know lots of very fair Ashkenazic Eastern European Jews. In fact I married one. They can sometimes be mistaken for being Irish.

The visionary literature about Jesus often recounts him as having “sandy” hair of shoulder length, blue-green eyes, and not dark or brownish-toned skin but swarthy skin, much like some Persians have, with a yellowish tone, more than a brownish tone.

 

[Elizabeth502]

He wasn’t black. He was Semitic not Negroid.

Correct.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In actual practice, Catholics do pray to images. I did. My wife does and still do today. And I don’t know of any Catholic (in my circle of friends and family) who does not pray to images.

And of the hundreds of Catholics I know, not a single one prays to any image. They may look at an image while thinking of what that image conveys, and simultaneously utter silent or oral prayers to the person represented by the image, but under no circumstances is a well-catechized Catholic praying to an image. I am such a well-catechized Catholic myself, and I’m clear that what we were taught in Catholic school is what we also did.

Just FYI, personally, most images don’t help me. Rarely, an image or a statue will move or inspire me about an aspect of a saint or of Jesus. But very rarely. Mostly I find it helpful to pray without props or images. My concentration is better, and I am far more open to hearing the Spirit, it seems.

 

[Thing]

You are a christian, mailman. You may walk into a Cathedral someday just to escape the hot mid-day sun and to just cool down somewhere peaceful. You wander in through the large heavy timber doors and your eyes adjust to the different light. You pause before the Tabernacle above the center of the church altar and bend your knee in the presence of Jesus your Lord and your God, there, and you bless yourself; in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You stand up again and look around you. Unlike some other buildings you have visited this one reminds you of everything you are as a christian. From the height of the building and its stone arches flying across the ceiling reaching for heaven, the stained glass windows seeming to be the multicoloured light from heaven illuminating the building with figures in heaven shining through them.
Look to the walls for the stations of the cross; the Sacred Scripture account of the arrest and crucifixion of your Lord and God in painting, you read the entire story of His death in a glance around the walls of the Cathedral. In every nook and niche there seems to lurk some fierce Saint of the early Church holding in his one hand the symbol identifying him and in his other hand the torture weapon used to torture him to death for his faith. Above his head is a halo, no doubt, representing the crown which you may hope to also gain when your time comes to die.
On the floor, made of cool marble, there are raised limestone block 8 feet long maybe, carved into the block is a full length portrait of a knight in full armour with his shield and sword resting on his chest. He was a good christian who kept the faith. He once owned all this land and his family donated the ground for the Cathedral. You might notice his legs though, before you leave. Sometimes the ankles are crossed, sometimes the knees, and sometimes the pelvis is broken and crossed, these symbolize or show that this Knight had undertaken a pilgrimage to either Jerusalem, Santiago de Compostela, or Rome. A long pilgrimage of between 500 to 2500 miles. On your way out after saying a prayer before the altar above which is a giant crucifix of Jesus Christ on the Cross and having your mind recalled to God, Jesus Christ, heaven, the life and death of Jesus, the Apostles, the christian martyrs, and Saints of the Church, and even the faithful christians like yourself who have died and gone to their reward you say a prayer for all of them that they may be well, and, you may feel a certain encouragement in your own journey from their own lives. So, as you turn to leave, you dip your fingers again into the stone font of blessed Holy water and bless yourself; in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which reflects a renewal of your baptism.

 

[patrick457]

Let’s go back to Publius Lentulus a bit.

Lentulus, the Governor of the Jerusalemites to the Roman Senate and People, greetings.

There has appeared in our times, and there still lives, a man of great power, called Jesus Christ. The people call him prophet of truth; his disciples, son of God. He raises the dead, and heals infirmities. He is a man of medium size (statura procerus, mediocris et spectabilis); he has a venerable aspect, and his beholders can both fear and love him. His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut, straight down to the ears, but below the ears wavy and curled, with a bluish and bright reflection, flowing over his shoulders. It is parted in two on the top of the head, after the pattern of the Nazarenes. His brow is smooth and vary cheerful with a face without wrinkle or spot, embellished by a slightly reddish complexion. His nose and mouth are faultless. His beard is abundant, of the colour of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin. His aspect is simple and mature, his eyes are changeable and bright. He is terrible in his reprimands, sweet and amiable in his admonitions, cheerful without loss of gravity. He was never known to laugh, but often to weep. His stature is straight, his hands and arms beautiful to behold. His conversation is grave, infrequent, and modest. He is the most beautiful among the children of men.

The usual arguments against this is:

1) There is no such post as a ‘Governor of Judea’. Prefects governed Judea from AD 6 until AD 41, when Emperor Claudius established Herod Agrippa I as king as a reward for the latter’s advice which helped to secure Claudius’ accession as emperor, adding the territories of the Roman prefects - Judea and Samaria - to him. Direct Roman rule resumed under procurators after Agrippa’s death in AD 44. While a prefect is indeed a sort of military governor, why did Lentulus not use his more-accurate title of ‘Prefect of Judea’?

2.) No Judean prefect or procurator under the name of Lentulus existed; some present Lentulus as Pilate’s predecessor, but from records (Josephus for example) we see that his predecessor is actually Valerius Gratus. Also, since Pilate was prefect for a ten-year period (the common reckoning is around AD 26-36), Lentulus would have seen Jesus and have become aware of His power and divinity BEFORE He even embarked in His public ministry and acquired a following! This is where a dilemma rises: why would a Roman official go through all the trouble of travelling to a small, poor Jewish village just to find a yet-obscure young peasant Jewish craftsman whom he thinks can do miracles to see how He looks like?
BTW, here is a list of the prefects who administrated in the province between AD 6-41:

Prefects

1. *]Coponius (6–9)
   *]Marcus Ambivulus (9–12)
   *]Annius Rufus (12–15)
   *]Valerius Gratus (15–26)
   *]Pontius Pilatus (26–36)
   *]Marcellus (36–37)
   *]Marullus (37–41)
   
   Procurators
   
   1. *]Cuspius Fadus (44–46)
      *]Tiberius Julius Alexander (46–48)
      *]Ventidius Cumanus (48–52)
      *]Marcus Antonius Felix (52–60)
      *]Porcius Festus (60–62)
      *]Lucceius Albinus (62–64)
      *]Gessius Florus (64–66)
      *]Marcus Antonius Julianus (66-70)
      
      3.) Lentulus addresses the Senatus Populusque Romanus in his letter. In reality, officials abroad would have written directly to the Emperor.
      
      4.) A Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, “prophet of truth”, “sons of men”, “Jesus Christ”. The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament.
      
      5.) We have no record of this letter, the different manuscripts of which vary from each other (the version presented here is actually just one of these), in antiquity: all the ancient writers seem to be unaware of the existence of this letter. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
      
      Different manuscripts vary from the foregoing text in several details: Dobschutz (“Christusbilder”, Leipzig, 1899) enumerates the manuscripts and gives an “apparatus criticus” . The letter was first printed in the “Life of Christ” by Ludolph the Carthusian (Cologne, 1474), and in the “Introduction to the works of St. Anselm” (Nuremberg, 1491). But it is neither the work of St. Anselm nor of Ludolph. According to the manuscript of Jena, a certain Giacomo Colonna found the letter in 1421 in an ancient Roman document sent to Rome from Constantinople. It must be of Greek origin, and translated into Latin during the thirteenth or fourteenth century, though it received its present form at the hands of humanist of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The description agrees with the so-called Abgar picture of our Lord; it also agrees with the portrait of Jesus Christ drawn by Nicephorus, St. John Damascene, and the Book of Painters (of Mt. Athos). Munter (“Die Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen”, Altona 1825, p. 9) believes he can trace the letter down to the time of Diocletian; but this is not generally admitted.

 

[patrick457]

We have now dealt briefly about one side of popular belief which presents Jesus as (physically) “most beautiful among the sons of men”, like the bridegroom of the Song of Songs. We now then go to the other side of the fence.
There are some Church Father who, based on Isaiah 52-53 or Psalm 22, thought that Jesus must not have had a pleasing appearance. Tertullian (Against Marcion 3.17) seemed to have leaned in this regard - he regarded Jesus as physically ‘inglorious’ yet spiritually ‘fairer than the sons of men’:

Let us compare with Scripture the rest of His dispensation. Whatever that poor despised body may be, because it was an object of touch and sight, it shall be my Christ, be He inglorious, be He ignoble, be He dishonoured; for such was it announced that He should be, both in bodily condition and aspect. Isaiah comes to our help again: “We have announced (His way) before Him,” says he; “He is like a servant, like a root in a dry ground; He has no form nor comeliness; we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty; but His form was despised, marred above all men.” Similarly the Father addressed the Son just before: “Inasmuch as many will be astonished at You, so also will Your beauty be without glory from men.” (Isaiah 52:14) For although, in David’s words, He is fairer than the children of men, yet it is in that figurative state of spiritual grace, when He is girded with the sword of the Spirit, which is verily His form, and beauty, and glory. According to the same prophet, however, He is in bodily condition “a very worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and an outcast of the people.” But no internal quality of such a kind does He announce as belonging to Him. In Him dwelt the fullness of the Spirit; therefore I acknowledge Him to be “the rod of the stem of Jesse.” His blooming flower shall be my Christ, upon whom has rested, according to Isaiah, “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of piety, and of the fear of the Lord.” (Isaiah 11:1-2) Now to no man, except Christ, would the diversity of spiritual proofs suitably apply. He is indeed like a flower for the Spirit’s grace, reckoned indeed of the stem of Jesse, but thence to derive His descent through Mary.

There is a quote attributed to St. Andrew of Crete which goes: “But moreover the Jew Josephus in like manner narrates that the Lord was seen having meeting eyebrows, goodly eyes, long-faced, crooked (epikyphos), well-grown.” What is bemusing however is that despite St. Andrew’s attribution, it does not appear in any manuscript of Josephus known to us; nor would Josephus have plausibly made such a remark, who almost never gives physical descriptions of people, only doing so when the information is essential to his story. People at that time did not describe in detail people’s appearance other than in general terms, which can sometimes be rather vague.

Now Robert Eisler, in his work The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist According to Flavius Josephus (extract here), did somehow decide to flesh it out by reconstructing how the passage may have looked like if written by Josephus. Some unfortunately took it at face value and since then, the idea that ‘Josephus (explicitly) describes Jesus as a hunchback’ is trumpeted all over the place. Here is the Eisler quote in question as it is commonly presented:

Both his nature and his form were human: for he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, short growth, three cubits tall [about 4 and a half feet, based on the Jewish cubit], with scanty hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Naziraeans, eyebrows meeting above the nose so that the spectators could take fright, with a long face, a long nose, and with an undeveloped beard, dark skin, and hunchbacked.

 

[Mailman]

You mean you actually addressed your prayers to the image itself (which would be idolatrous worship of the image), and NOT to Jesus or whichever saint was represented (which is, d’uh, simply and correctly prayer)?

Not to the image itself, but to whoever was represented.

You actually said (or thought) words to the effect of ‘O PICTURE of Jesus help me/save me/forgive me’ or ‘O STATUE of Mary pray for me’??? (which is idolatry) And didn’t instead, while viewing the image, simply think or say ‘O JESUS help me/save me/forgive me’ or ‘O MARY pray for me’ (which is correct prayer to the person and not the image)???

While viewing the image and kneeling down I would pray, ‘O Jesus, help me…’ or, ‘O Mary pray for me…” Did I do it right or did I break God’s commandment?

 

[Mailman]

Mailman, the world we were created in is a visual world. Every tree, sky, animal, we see is an image, a visual image of creation. Creation is essentially a very visual thing.

We, as humans, though, were created to know and love our creator, freely.
He did not reveal *Himself *to His humans visually until 2000 years ago. Until that time He would not allow any visual representation of Himself, He did not even tell Moses His name. The creator wished to remain hidden and secret until He became man.

And how did you know this? How did you know that our Creator now wants us to have a visual representation of Him when before He did not allow this?

As He said Himself, no-one has seen the Father except the Son; If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.

So, 2000 years ago, humans have not just known God the creator but have also seen Him too, finally. Before this time He remained hidden to people.
When a visual representation of Jesus Christ is drawn or painted it is restating this idea in effect, that God the creator became man and dwelt among us in a highly visual way. We could see Him walk, speak, eat, die. And we are now free to represent these things visually in art as we would have seen them then.

If you use that logic, the Father would be made of flesh and blood: As we see a human Jesus, we also see a human Father.

What Jesus meant was that the Father and the Son are in complete spiritual harmony – perfect in unity as to attitude, belief, direction and purpose. So, what we see in Jesus – His attitude and character – is what the Father also possesses. And what we hear from Jesus – the things that He preached – is what we can also expect to hear from the Father. We know the Father when we see the Son, not because they look alike, but because they are in perfect spiritual harmony.

If, however, regarding the Ten Commandments, you think that a painting is a real god, a graven image worshipped as a god because people believe it is a god or God, then I’m afraid that it is your own understanding which is mistaken. A painting is not a god. We do not hammer a pin into the wall and hang an actual real, live, god on the wall and worship him.
We paint the visual scene of God as man as you yourself would have seen the visual image of God as man had you lived 2000 years ago.

Of course, these images are not real Gods. I do not think they are, and I do not see anybody in his right mind thinking their statues of wood and stone are real gods. They’re representations of the gods being worshipped, not the gods themselves. People [and that include pagans with their representations of their many pagan gods] use their images as an AID to worship.

But that is precisely what the second commandment forbids. As the first commandment tells us to worship the Creator alone, the second commandment tells us about HOW to worship that Creator. We are not to make any representation of Him in our worship. That’s why Jesus said: “But the hour cometh, and NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father IN SPIRIT and in truth… God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).

The instant a man sets up any representation of God, he denies that which is essential in God. God is the essence of all power – all wisdom – all love. God is limitless. When a man erects a mental or physical image of God, he automatically limits in his own thought and worship the God who will not be limited.

God does not condemn art or sculpture, but rather the setting up of any picture or image or representation “to bow down unto it.” It is the use of art or sculpture as a form of worship or “aid” to worship that God condemns. The second commandment is not speaking of the worship of an idol – that’s forbidden in the first commandment. The second commandment forbids the use of physical “aids” or “helps” in worshipping the invisible God.

The golden calf that the ancient Israelites made was a representation of the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. It was not some idol in place of the true God. It represented God Himself. Notice that after making the golden calf, the Israelites declared: “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Exo. 32:4). And when Aaron saw this, he proclaimed: “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord” (next verse).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Mailman,

You might be interested in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=464135&highlight=icons

I had the same question you did.

 

[Mailman]

And how do you know the Bible is God’s word and therefore reliable? I will tell you how, because the Catholic Church compiled the books of the Bible and said it is God’s word. You need to read a bit of history, dear friend: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

This reminds me of Jesus’ words to the Jews who boasted that, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus tells them: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39).

Unlike you, the Jews had a valid claim. Yet Jesus said they still have to do the words of the Lord so they can be counted as one of His. To the self-glorifying Jews Jesus made it clear that, “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (v. 47).

The Bible, the book you trust implicitly although you don’t know why , says that Jesus was born of the Jews of the house of David. Believe me, he wasn’t black. He was Semitic not Negroid.

In my faith only God can say, “I know their works and their thoughts” (Isa. 66:18).

So, you are certain that Jesus wasn’t black. If I make an image of a black Jesus and venerate it, would that be ok?

It tells us no such thing. It tells us the Church is not willing to make pronouncements about things Jesus did not teach it. The Church is not in the business of making useless speculations, it’s in the business of giving what Jesus commissioned it to the world.

The Bible [OT to NT], contains the teachings of God. Even the Catholic Church admits to that fact.

“The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration” (Online Catholic Encyclopedia, “The Bible”).

The Bible tells of many things the Catholic Church have, until now, made no official pronouncement as to their truthfulness and/or historicity. If you deny that, please give me a list of what the Magisterium has so far declared to be true and official church teaching.

What useless speculations? You have just told me that you are certain Jesus wasn’t black because the Bible says He was a Jew. You weren’t speculating then, were you? You based your assertion from the biblical revelation. In the same way, we can also determine whether Jesus wore long hair or whether He looked any different from His fellow Jews from the biblical revelation.

And what did Jesus commission it to the world?

We should leave up to the Church to decide if it’s important to know what Jesus looked like or not. And since it’s not important–not part of the revelation of the Son of Man to the world, the Church does not say and need not say.

So, your church has decided that what Jesus looked like is not important. Are you saying, then, that anyone can come up with just any image of a person and say it is a depiction of Christ?

I say this in all kindness, you are a former Catholic who knows what he as surmised from his own way of thinking/been told by non-Catholics what Catholics are doing when they venerate an image of Christ or the Saints.

You do?

I know about these things, not from what I have surmised, but from what I have seen and heard from Catholics that I personally know.

As a convert to the Catholic Church I can tell you I don’t pray to images. They are helps/aids to my faith just as the images in the Temple were to the people of Israel. That’s right images used in the worship of the Jews–images God himself ordered be made. Look it up for yourself in Leviticus.

Do you look reverently upon an image, kneel down before it, and then say a prayer?

There’s nothing of the sort in Leviticus. On the contrary, we find this commandment given to the Israelites: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 26:1).

The Lord warns the Israelites that, “…if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments, I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you” (v. 16-17).

“And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me” – if they persist in venerating/worshipping images – “then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits” (v. 19-20).

You can read the rest of that chapter and see for yourself what God will do to those who venerate/worship images. The sin is so serious that God said, “ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat” (v. 29).

But He has promised that, “I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images….” And to show His utter contempt, He added, “… and cast down your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you” (v. 30).

 

[Mailman]

And of the hundreds of Catholics I know, not a single one prays to any image. They may look at an image while thinking of what that image conveys, and simultaneously utter silent or oral prayers to the person represented by the image, but under no circumstances is a well-catechized Catholic praying to an image. I am such a well-catechized Catholic myself, and I’m clear that what we were taught in Catholic school is what we also did.

When a person looks at an image and says a prayer, that person IS praying to the image. The prayer may be directed towards the person represented by the image, but technically, he is praying to the image. No one prays to an image expecting the image to hear prayers. Even pagans don’t direct their prayers to statues of stone. It is always the person represented by the image that the prayer would be directed to, not to the image itself.

Nebuchadnezzar erected an image of himself that was made of gold. He commanded the people to pay reverence to it by bowing down to the image when some palace music was heard. Of course, Nebuchadnezzar understood that by their act of bowing down to the image, the people would be showing reverence to him, the person represented in the image, not to the image itself.

 

[Mailman]

Well, he probably doesn’t have any. But then again, if that’s the case, at least he’s fortunately consistent about it.

I had a question you haven’t answered. Do you admit that Catholics worship images? The piece by St. John of Damascus that you posted says: “Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images…”

 

[jmcrae]

Of course, these images are not real Gods. I do not think they are, and I do not see anybody in his right mind thinking their statues of wood and stone are real gods. They’re representations of the gods being worshipped, not the gods themselves. People [and that include pagans with their representations of their many pagan gods] use their images as an AID to worship.

No, this is incorrect. The pagans believe that the wood and stone contain the essence or soul of their god. They don’t consider them to be representations of something unseen. They have no concept of an unseen reality.

But that is precisely what the second commandment forbids.

No, it isn’t. What the second commandment forbids is the actual worship of graven images - that is, things created by human beings that are thought to contain the essences or souls of gods.

The golden calf that the ancient Israelites made was a representation of the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt.

No, it wasn’t. They believed that it contained the soul of God, and that they could pray to it and receive answers to their prayers. It was not a representation of anything exterior to itself - Aaron thought that the soul or the essence of God was inhabiting the golden calf.

 

[vera_dicere]

Victorian Romanticism.

The Victorian Romanticists used to depict virtue in feminine form, so, for example, they depicted Faith, Hope, and Charity as three young women in white.

Yeah, I’m no fan of that art form. Give me Greek black figure any day.

But it always weirded me out how VR drew babies and small children as just tiny, chubby men with girly faces.

Its just creepy. >_<

End of the day, though, who cares what Jesus looked like. Its what’s on the inside that counts as they always say.

 

[LilyM]

No, this is incorrect. The pagans believe that the wood and stone contain the essence or soul of their god. They don’t consider them to be representations of something unseen. They have no concept of an unseen reality.

An example of mailman’s incorrectness would be the Black Stone at the Ka’aba shrine in Mecca. It was worshipped by pagans well before it was appropriated by Islam. Point being, if memory serves those pagans didn’t see it as a ‘representation’ of some ineffable deity.

For one thing it is literally a ROCK, didn’t have any images or decoration on it of any kind, and so couldn’t meaningfully be said to ‘represent’ a ‘person’. The idea that you even assume pagan gods were automatically considered to be ‘persons’ as we consider our God to be three persons in one shows your ignorance of pagan religions, mm.

They actually believed the Black Stone itself was the thing, was the deity, was the source of its own power. In other words the general attitude went something like this:

They believed that it contained the soul of God, and that they could pray to it and receive answers to their prayers. It was not a representation of anything exterior to itself - Aaron thought that the soul or the essence of God was inhabiting the golden calf.

Otherwise why bother destroying the Golden Calf? Surely the sophisticated Israelites could worship the ‘god’ of the Golden Calf just as easily without an image as with one. It was destroyed because destroying the image demonstrated that there was in fact no god contained within it - since a divine image couldn’t be destroyed, at least not without some divine vengeance resulting.

In the same manner the image of the Babylonian god Dagon fell a few times when placed in the presence of, and then was smashed into a million pieces by, God’s power when the Ark of the Covenant was placed in Dagon’s temple. Clearly if the Babylonians DIDN’T believe the image of Dagon was itself divine the destruction of this one image wouldn’t mean a thing to them. They’d simply have swept up the pieces, made another image (or brought one in from another of Dagon’s temples) and kept on their merry old way. Instead they recognised by it that the God of Israel at least was equally powerful, if not more powerful, than Dagon.

And yes, there were statues of Nebuchadnezzar before which people had to bow. Why did Nebuchadnezzar not personally appear before the crowds and demand this worship directly for himself if he was genuinely convinced that he was divine?

Now tell me - why did the Romans laugh at the tradition of deifying (declaring divine) the Emperors once the cruel and insane (and detested) Caligula and Nero both received this honour? Yet still insist on Christians ‘worshipping’ their Emperors?

A clue lies in the multiple meanings of the word ‘worship’.

Did you know that there are STILL magistrates (judges in petty matters) here in Australia, and probably elsewhere, who are addressed as ‘Your Worship’? I’m sure you must think that we consider these people to be divine! Yet it is not at all an indication of divinity, but rather a sign of respect for the office they hold. I daresay it was likewise for Nebuchadnezzar and the Romans.

Mind you, I don’t even ‘worship’ IMAGES of Christ or the Virgin or Saints in that sense of showing profound respect that I would to a magistrate. Not to the image itself. Not ever.

The images are images, perhaps marginally more important to me than images of other subjects, and so treated with more care, but that care doesn’t indicate worship.

I may treasure a picture of my boyfriend, even ‘talk’ to it when away from him, but I WORSHIP neither the picture itself nor my boyfriend by so doing.

So someone who loves and appreciates art might treat a valuable Picasso with care, and if they are an aspiring artist may even in their imagination hold conversations with him while looking at the artwork, but again they don’t worship either the picture or the artist by so doing.

 

[Zooey]

When a person looks at an image and says a prayer, that person IS praying to the image.

:coffeeread: But–but–but that would mean that the Free Methodists pray to:bigyikes: the church pews, and that us United Methodists pray to:bigyikes::bigyikes: our beds!!!

[SIGN1]
:frighten:
It’s the End Of The World!!
It’s the End Of the World!!!
[/SIGN1]

:compcoff:Or, maybe you’re just a wee tad bit :whacky:confused, yean…:twocents:

 

[patrick457]

I had a question you haven’t answered. Do you admit that Catholics worship images? The piece by St. John of Damascus that you posted says: “Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images…”

Well, why stop at the translation? Yes, the original Greek John of Damascus wrote in does have proskynēsis (can be either translated as ‘worship’ or ‘veneration’): proskynēsis originally referred). Before we go further, we need to go back a bit into the text:

Proskynēsis is a symbol of submission (hypoptōseōs) and of honor (timē). And we know different forms of this. The first is as a form of latreia, which we offer to God, alone by nature worthy of proskynēsis. Then there is that which is offered, on account of God who is naturally worshipped (proskynēton), to His friends and servants, as Iesous of Naue and Daniel worshipped (prosekynēsan) an angel; or to the places of God, as David said, “Let us worship (proskynēsōmen) in the place where His feet stood (Ps. 132:7 LXX)”; or to the things sacred to Him, as all of Israel worshipped (prosekysei) the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem standing in a circle around it, and then from everywhere worshipping (proskynountes) towards it from that day to this, or to those rulers established by Him, as Iakob to Esau, made by God the elder-born brother, and to Pharao, appointed by God his ruler, and to Joseph by his brothers. And I know that such proskynēsis was based on honor, as in Abraam and the sons of Emmor (Genesis 23:7). Either, therefore, do away with proskynēsis, or receive it altogether according to its proper reason and manner.

So there are different degrees of proskynēsis, the highest of which is latreia. That is NOT the type of ‘worship’ that John is talking about when referring to the icons.

It was, therefore, for the Jews, on account of their sliding into idolatry, that these things were ordained by law. We, however, speaking Theologically (i.e. after the manner of Gregory the Theologian), to whom it was granted, fleeing superstitious error, to come to be purely with God and having recognized the truth, to worship God alone and be greatly enriched with the perfection of divine knowledge, and who, passing beyond the stage of infancy to reach the perfection of manhood, are no longer under a custodian, have received our habit of discrimination from God, and know what can be depicted and what cannot be delineated in an image. “For,” it says, “you have not seen His likeness.” (Exodus 33:20) What wisdom in the Lawgiver! How could that which is not visible be depicted? How could that which is not conceivable be portrayed? How could one without measure, size, or limit be drawn? How could the formless be given a form? How could the bodiless be depicted in color? What therefore is this that is revealed in mysteries?
For it is clear that when you see the Bodiless become man for your sake, then you may accomplish the figure of a human form. When the Invisible becomes visible in the flesh, you may then draw a likeness of something seen. When One who by transcending His own nature, is bodiless, formless, incommensurable, without magnitude or size, that is, One who is in the form of God, taking the form of a slave, by this reduction to quantity and magnitude puts on the characteristics of a body, then depict Him on a board and set it up to view the One who has accepted to be seen. Depict His ineffable descent, His birth from the Virgin, His being baptized in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, what He endured to secure our freedom from passion, the miracles, symbols of His divine nature, performed by the divine activity through the activity of the flesh, His saving cross, the tomb, the resurrection, the ascent into heaven.
Depict all this in words and colors. Do not be afraid, do not fear; I know the different forms of proskynēsis. Abraam worshipped (prosekynēse) the sons of Emmor, impious men and suffering in ignorance of God, when he acquired the cave as a double inheritance for a tomb. Iakob worshipped (prosekynēsen) Esau his brother and Pharao the Egyptian man, over the head of his staff. They worshipped (prosekynēse), they did not adore (elatreuse = give latreia). Iesous of Naue and Daniel worshipped (prosekynēsan) an angel of God; but they did not adore (elatreusan). The worship of latreia (latreias proskynēsis) is one thing, that which is offered in honor to those who excel on account of something worthy another.