Posted on 05/14/2016 4:50:18 AM PDT by NYer
Catholic ping!
The earliest Christians were Jewish and they had no tradition of human forms in their religion. That changed when other peoples adopted Christ.
When Greeks (or Greek influenced peoples in the Near East) became Christianized, they adopted the human forms that made most sense to them; Jesus as the young shepherd, and the older bearded mature man (who was a teacher).
#3, which I also associate with the style of Russian iconography, I have heard shares an amazing correspondence with what the shroud of Turin reveals.
It’s always impressive to me that the incarnated Lord came with so much love that He was willing to endure being viewed as asinine, before being viewed as anything higher. The graffiti may have been intended to blaspheme, but the scripture tells us “He made Himself nothing, and took on a servant’s nature.”
Even those who hate Jesus serve as witness, against their will even, to His grace.
Are we, too, willing to show an “asinine” degree of love? I’m not touching on any political metaphor here, please, let’s stay out of that (well, we could say His love is also larger than an elephant to balance the symbolism out, but that’s all I would want to say). The problem is not God, it’s our own lack of faith to see where Jesus wants to lead. Our very best human moralizing, whether “conservative” or “liberal,” is going to fail. If Christianity only became known as a good morals society, it would have fallen short. To garb oneself in Jesus and forever listen for the heavenly Voice is the only way to succeed.
Those look like what Jesus would look. There are too many images of Christ as a European white guy. Or Tab Hunter.
Thanks for posting this.
The similarities between the Pantocrator icon and the image on the Shroud of Turin are startling. It is too significant to be coincidental. The location of facial features including eyes, nose and mouth are astounding. When a transparency of the Shroud face is placed over a photograph of the icon, they align perfectly. See For Yourself.
It could be that when the Lord wanted to leave behind some sort of impression, He chose that one. He knew human nature and how it would react, and chose a benign face that people would consider attractive to seek. The bible testimony is that he did not have a “stately form or majesty” - i.e. he wasn’t cutting the kind of figure that tends to inspire awe or fear.
>>The earliest Christians were Jewish and they had no tradition of human forms in their religion. That changed when other peoples adopted Christ.
But they had Jesus, the actual man, and they believed that he was also God. So, when those “other peoples” joined and asked “what did he look like?”, the early Jewish Christians could describe him based on second- or even first-hand knowledge.
Wow this is one of the best posts I’ve read on FR in recent memory at least. True words for every Christian. Thank you.
Please pray for me as I pray for you.
If it’s good, it’s because I have learned a vision of the Lord, sometimes even against my own will. I keep on trying to box the Lord in and He keeps on finding some way to break out of that box.
Some of the disputes within Christendom that men consider so large that they won’t even worship together except in certain combinations, look very small to the Lord. He is the patient Teacher and leads us steadily, if we are willing, out of what is wrong, most graciously forgiving us for the wrong as we go, into what is right because He made it right from the beginning.
And also as a kind of nonconformist here on FR, I have been moved to the conclusion that liberals are often not so much wrong, as that they have their cast of characters all mixed up. They tend to try to get secular authorities into a business that ought to be known as belonging to Christianity and even other privately benevolent world faiths (though the other faiths may be wrong in their particulars, they still serve as a dim, metaphorical illustration of the grace of God). We don’t need this, which is an attempt to fill a spiritual vacuum the wrong way. We don’t need pan-welfare states. We need small, simple, dedicated governments that leave room for the grace of God in private spheres.
But most certainly the Lord bless you to living a life wrapped with and filled with Himself...
“shares an amazing correspondence with what the shroud of Turin”
I agree,
Also the ‘blasphemer’ drawing is interesting to me if it provides any evidence for the shape of the Roman cross, meaning arms out straight from the shoulders vs. in a slight ‘V’ shape with hands overhead etc.,
I was lucky to see the portrait of Jesus Pantocrator in person when I visited the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai in 1989. It is life-size and painted in colored wax over gold leaf and it seems almost alive in person. One minute it seems that Jesus has a stern look and the next the portrait seems to smile at you.
Isaiah 53:2b “He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.”
I don’t think I will even begin to point out that without a photo, we have next to no idea what Jesus looked like.
"Little children, guard yourselves from idols."Apostle John, I John 5:21
“Or Tab Hunter.”
Ahhhh, the Mormon Jesus: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Joseph-Smith-often-misrepresented-in-Mormon-art#!n=12
Nobody is worshiping these paintings.
Most believe this to be a messianic scripture. Based on this I think it's pretty fair to say that Jesus didn't want to get by on good looks. No pretenses and no airs. It does a disservice to Jesus when we try to pretend he was some greek god with wavy perfect hair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.