Posted on 02/12/2005 11:59:27 AM PST by NYer
Rome, Feb. 11, 2005 (CNA) - Forensic scientists in Italy are working on a different kind of investigation—one that dates back 2000 years.
In an astounding announcement, the scientists think they may have re-created an image of Jesus Christ when He was a 12-year old boy.
Using the Shroud of Turin, a centuries-old linen cloth, which many believe bears the face of the crucified Christ, the investigators first created a computer-modeled, composite picture of the Christ’s face.
Dr. Carlo Bui, one of the scientists said that, “the face of the man on the shroud is the face of a suffering man. He has a deeply ruined nose. It was certainly struck."
Then, using techniques usually reserved for investigating missing persons, they back dated the image to create the closest thing many will ever see to a photograph of the young Christ.
“Without a doubt, the eyes... That is, the deepness of the eyes, the central part of the face in its complexity”, said forensic scientist Andrea Amore, one of the chief investigators who made the discovery.
The shroud itself, a 14-foot long by 3.5-foot wide woven cloth believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus, is receiving renewed attention lately.
A Los Alamos, New Mexico scientist has recently cast grave doubt that the carbon dating originally used to date the shroud was valid. This would suggest that the shroud may in fact be 2000 years old after all, placing it precisely in the period of Christ’s crucifixion.
" It must be hard to keep from weeping when these are chanted or read. "
We don't even try! Some time ago Agrarian wrote that our Orthodoxy is taught in our Liturgies and services. The funeral service, which actually takes about an hour to complete (the church part I mean), is filled with so much of what we as Orthodox believe.
Invariably, at Mass, when the bread and wine is being consecrated, I'm overcome with emotion, and the verses our Priests use do not even come close to the kind of elaboration it appears is part of the Divine Liturgy.
The Tones you posted, for me, at least, go right to the heart of what I believe the Catholic Faith to be. They are incredibly beautiful.
sacrifice and love of the vigil keepers
Sacrifice? What are we sacrifycing when we go to church?
BTW, this is what Divine Liturgy sounds like (especially the three-part one, second from the top)
The sentiment of Love behind the Vigil is what is beautiful. It goest without saying that much greater sacrifice is possible and desirable, but that doesn't diminish the value of the smaller sacrifice, IMO.
And thanks for the link, but unfortunately I wasn't able to access it because my OS is rather old. Can't install real player because my browser won't allow it, at least that's what I'm told.
We sing in the church because people who are happy sing! We stand in the church (well, some of us do!) because we stand before God.
I hope you read this beautiful exposition of Orthodox thought expressed only in a way an Orthodox monk can. It should bring tears to your eyes as much as the prayers posted, because it reaches to your heart and soul. We Orthodox cry a lot, don't we Kolo? Out of overwhelming happiness when God touches us!
God is dispassionate, dear sister in Christ. He feels neither joy nor sorrow, neither pain nor pleasure.
One of great Orthodox writers, Alexander Kalomiros, quotes from the first book of Philokalia
He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same..." [River of Fire]
We know God as eternal and immutable, not "humanized," as in the West. For attributing to Him human characteristics and emotions is pagan.
As Monk Moses reminds us "God does not ask that we converse with him using beautiful words, but that what we say emanates from a beautiful soul. Prayer does not need mediators, formalities, or appointments at prescribed hours..."
Kolo will tell you that Orthodoxy is also a mindset -- phronema. We not only pray differently from the Latins, or Protestants; we think differently. That's why I always tell him we have to step very lightly when we disclose Orthodoxy to the non-Orthodox, and even to the converts -- for it is a shock that not everyone can readily absorb.
Right away though, this caught my attention:
The mind learns that with which it is preoccupied. If one is preoccupied during the entire day with the lives of others, he derives no benefit for himself. Through unbridled curiosity and idle discussion, particularly where the sins of others are addressed with satisfaction and interest, we stimulate and arouse our own passions.
I always seem to find out after the fact, that I should have remained silent. Anyway, thanks again, and it looks like there's a lot there.
"We Orthodox cry a lot, don't we Kolo? Out of overwhelming happiness when God touches us!"
That my friend is precisely and totally correct. And it is a happiness like no other!
How about when God said, 'behold my Son, in whom I am well pleased.' That doesn't sound dispassionate to me. Perhaps he is dispassionate as it pertains to me, I don't know, but he was pleased with his Son. Unless that Scriptural passage means something other than what the words indicate it means.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes though, my tears of sorrow make me aware that I am alive in a way that Joy does not. Sorrow led me back to God, and as such, sorrow is sacrosanct to me.
Captivating, isn't it? And how true! But how doe we know it is true? Not because we can weight it; measure it; paint it. The spirit knows.
If you pray incessantly, you will not sin. Life of prayer is the ultimate in what we know as theosis. Most of us can only hope to come close -- one day.
If you had been silent, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :-)
You are not the only one. There are tears of repentance, at the realization that we pushed God away from us and given in to sin. We cry because we are sorry, truly sorry to have rejected Him Who offers nothing but compassion and mercy, or -- worse -- for blaming Him for our loss.
When you are in the dumps and see nothing but a dark an empty hole in front of you, and ask yourself what is this all about, is this all for nothing, when your pride and human arrogance is thoroughly destroyed, and you can do nothing but say "help me!" and He picks you up -- at that moment it all wells up, the sorrow for yourself, for not having had faith, for not being able to say with peace in your heart "Thy will be done!" but above all from the happiness that He is always there and always the same, loving God.
The Fathers have addressed the issue of "humanizing" God (antropomorphism) as a qualified necessity driven by our limited mental capacity, untrained thought, and language limitations. There is a lot mroe to understanding the Word of God than just reading the Bible. There is a lot more to experiencing God then reading the Bible!
I don't know how much time you have to read, but if you want an exposition on the Orthodox faith, and also answers to these questions of antropomorphism, Trinity and other issues, I suggest +John Damascene. I think you will find his clear monastic thinking most profitable.
Thanks.
I understand what you're saying and superficially that may be true if we knew what actually comprised the LXX and whether it was actually canon. From my reading, there was no single version. And when one considers that the books of 1&2 Clement ended up in an Alexandrian version of the LXX, one wonders who's motives that was serving - certainly not that of the Jews. It would rather seem that while the LXX had been intended for Jewish creation and usage, it ended up being appended and abused otherwise. That leads back to my earlier questions of what was the original makeup and was that collection ever actually considered canon.
That is probably more accurate than what the "church" can come up with.
Yeah, I know that's the latin claim; but, I also know they are considered to be forged. The Second book is pretty universally rejected and the first is considered highly dubious.
I believe that's part of my point. I also believe I addressed that with regard to the Hebrew canon as it was known in the first century and survives today. You've attempted to state that the Hebrews altered canon from the LXX to produce the current Hebrew version. As I noted, you need to do more than posit that this is the case. Jamnia was not a council and did not set canon. Jamnia was a scholarly meeting from my reading and nothing more. And I find nothing stating that the LXX canonized any apocryphals. I hear your religion claiming it; but, I find nothing to support it but speculation about Jamnia. And we've been over Jamnia. I understand you want to push the Jews aside and rewrite their history to favor yourself; but, that isn't how it works anymore than saying we have the right to classify a meeting with the Pope as a council if it is not so recognized as one officially by Rome. With due respect, it isn't your place to classify their history and official or unofficial events for them. They're quite capable of doing that themselves.
So, that leaves us, still, with you claiming something that has no support. And it further leaves you usurping authority of the Jews in adding to the OT canon.
You keep returning the idea that I need to prove that the Septuagint was a canon, and that the books Jesus and the Apostles cited to, which are not in the Hebrew Canon, were considered canonical.
Yep. You are claiming that they are canon. If you're going to claim it, you then need to establish factually that this is true.
But you're missing something crucial: I am not the Sola Scripturalist. YOU are. YOU are asserting that there is one canon, and that everything we need to know about God is right there
Um, you'll have to point that out for me in any of my argumentation. And No, I am not a "Sola Scripturalist". You made a claim - or rather your church has - and now that it has been rather thoroughly slaughtered from a historical standpoint, you wish to dodge by trying to shift the burden of proof from your own argument. This is classic latin argumentation which I was hoping you had enough integrity not to descend into.
Your story attempted to mis-classify a first century Jewish meeting and speculate about that meeting in trying to say that the LXX included the apocryphals, were canon, and were altered from that status to spite you. Jamnia was not a council, did not set canon or alter it - either one. That is the record presented by the Jews and every scholar I've read. The only place I've read anything different so far is in Catholic writeups.. wherein the actual history seems to be no obstacle.. Some might call this propaganda or being "loose with the truth". I think it is more properly referred to as "lying". Yet we're supposed to believe you presumably because you say so? By extension were really saying everyone is supposed to believe Rome because Rome says so. That isn't how it works. Sorry.
As for your attempt to refute a red herring of Sola Scriptura, stop, it's embarrassing. We're talking about fundamentals of defining a foundation. You argued for a foundation because of the authority that foundation gives. You wanted the credibility of assent from the Jews. Now that your attempt to establish that has failed, you wish to argue that you have authority anyway just because. This tells us that you neither respect nor abide by fundamental authority unless you like it. And it tells us one other thing..
The authority you were attempting to establish for your canon is a grant of authority to your clergy. Absent that grant of authority, your clergy has no inherent authority as the foundation they presume to preceed from IS the testimony of the Judaic canon and the Apostles. The moment they usurp authority that scripturally can be shown a usurpation, they present themselves as frauds for overstepping their bounds. If one cannot establish authority - one then has none. If one usurps authority, having none to begin with, what authority they wield is fraudulent. And "tradition" cannot overcome that.
Why. Glad you asked. You just attempted to establish Roman authority for canon and failed. The canon is what any further authority proceeds from - it is the message. If you've no authority for your message, then anything you say is said absent authority for the saying. And your ideas about tradition proceed from usurped authority - not proper authority. Hence, you are trying to argue that a product of usurped authority grants you the authority you usurped to begin with. This is akin to saying that if you stole money, invested it and were busted, you are then entitled to the interest from the investment and, by extention, the interest then should give you right to the money you stole.
The only reason you attempt to establish authority for something - anything, is to show you properly hold authority. If you fail to establish that you hold said authority properly, you've mooted *any* and all reason to be listened to as authoritative. Period. You know that - which is why you made the fallacious appeal to a form of tradition that would require authority to begin with. Your hope was to claim authority by default in place of proper claim. That is called grasping at straws to maintain pretense. Pretense is not a substitute for authority. And absent authority, there is zero reason why anyone should be listening to Rome.
Since you are not, by your own definition, Protestant, then what is the big deal anyway. Jesus and the Apostles clearly used the Deuterocanonical works: they use passages from them all the time. Presumably you want to get it right with Jesus. Why not, then, use the same books that HE did? Why are you even arguing that those books are not in the canon, if you're not a Protestant?
It's called proper authority, that thing we've been discussing all along. If you can't establish that you have authority to speak for Walmart, there is no reason for anyone to listen to you when you presume to do so. This is something basic that human beings understand as a matter of common sense. If you aren't a cop; but, of pretense approach me and claim to be, that is fraud. The same thing is true of writings. If you sell me a book presuming to be from the hand of, say, Ann Coulter and they turn out not to be either written, spoken or originating from her, then any citation of the writing is by extension a fraud and a lie. This is why it is proper to be sure of what books one uses as foundational. If you reference books that cannot be ensured authentic and proper to message, all you're doing is lying to people by extension in using them. If you don't care whether you're being truthful or not and rather proceed because you like what you read, you've established that you don't care whether you tell your audience the truth or not - to say nothing of whether you plan to be truthful with them otherwise. If your standards are that loose, there is no reason to believe you. Given that you were rather less than honest in your presentation re Jamnia, your example would tend to bare up that conclusion. Though, I must admit, this isn't by far the first time I've caught such things from latin rite apologists. Given the level of comity that has existed in this discussion, I am disappionted. I thought for a while I was speaking to someone of integrity. I still could be; but, I would think that would be shown in an ability to accept the truth instead of trying to find excuses or way around it.
In sum, if you can't establish authority to speak for Walmart, any attempt to do so is fraudulent and by definition unauthoritative. The object for which authority is attempted to be established is fraudulent in attempting to excercise that authority in absence of authority. That would include yourself, your clergy, a book, or what you call 'tradition'. By extension, the same is true no matter who you pretend to represent. In absence of proof of authority, the pretense is fraud.
Just think - in a few thousand years they'll dig up some poor old bodies and tell us what an 'American' looked like. There will be a mock-up of a typical American family residence in a museum, complete with the outdoor "animal sacrifice altar" where bones are discovered (they won't realize it was a grill) and the fiberboard and glass box in front of a sitting area that Americans were required to "worship indoors."
Attributed to Clement.
Doesn't really matter if he wrote them or not. They're certainly very ancient and were held in high esteem by many in the early Church.
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.