The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion

Catholic Exchange ^ | May 11, 2005 | Mark Shea

[PetroniusMaximus]

***The only biblical hair is Samson's, ***\

From Isaiah's prohpetic account of Jesus trial...

"The Lord GOD has opened My ear; And I was not rebellious, Nor did I turn away. I gave My back to those who struck Me, And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting... Isa. 50:5,6

:)

[jo kus]

WOW! You write so nicely...

"massively fissiparous, variegated set of thousands of disagreeing non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians..."

Very impressive! I enjoy reading your well-written posts :-)

Brother in Christ

[Quester]

What is interesting also is the arrogance that they have when they think they know more than the combined writings of 2000 years of spiritual thought of God's revelation, some of which was written less than 100 years after Christ's resurrection ...

We don't wish to know more than Catholics.

Our beliefs are simple ... we only wish to know what the Apostles (i.e. the writers of the scriptures) knew ... and were led by the Holy Spirit to record.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Why, if the Church's authority is unacceptable, do they unwittingly accept the Church's authority on these matters? Are they Catholic and don't realize yet?***

I can't speak for biblewonk, but I can say that a great many Chritians believe 95% of waht you would find in the writings of the early Church fathers.

We accept the "authority" of these fathers in as much as their opinions line up with Scripture.

Where we part is that we believe that over the millenia doctrine shifted away from the Scripture and became something more like doctrine built on doctrine built on doctrine etc. rather than doctrine build directly on Scripture - thereby arriving at such ghastly practices as indulgences etc.



***What is interesting also is the arrogance that they have when they think they know more than the combined writings of 2000 years of spiritual thought of God's revelation***

Did not the RCC teach us that the universe was geocentric and punish heliocentricism as heresy?

Do we know more than that?

[annalex]

Ah, good. Christ's beard is biblical.

So, how did I know that Christ had a beard? Did I wonder about His beard till you showed me the Isaiah verse? Or did I read about his masculinity in the Gospels and interpreted that into an image of a bearded man? Or maybe -- and that is the factual truth in my case -- look at an icon of a Savior?

Do Protestants wait till they read Isaiah before they make those pictures where Christ invariably looks like a bearded Swede back from a beach vacation?

Most translations of Isaiah have "cheeks", not "beard" (I will spare myself going to the Hebrew original at this moment). Wouldn't "plucking the cheeks" require interpretation? Shouldn't we translate "plucking" as "pinching" and deduce that Christ did NOT have a beard?

Questions, questions ...

[annalex]

Are they Catholic and don't realize yet?

I think that is a fair description of most Protestants. They've been lead into a lapse by a crew of interpreters, but they will die Catholic.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***look at an icon of a Savior? ***

Your early icons are beardless.

I guess the later icon-makers read the scriptures and made appropriate corrections!

[annalex]

Starting in the sixth century, pictures of Jesus seem inspired or even copied from a single source.

What did Jesus look like? Amazingly, there is no description of Him in the New Testament or in any contemporary source.  Yet, in hundreds of pictures, icons, paintings, mosaics, drawings and coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Shroud scholar and historian Ian Wilson theorizes that a common set of facial characteristics became the norm following the discovery of the Edessa Cloth concealed in the city's walls in 544 CE. 

Apparent Shroud-inspired pictures of Christ are noticeable on coins struck in 692 CE during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian II. The distinctive front-facing appearance of Jesus on the Shroud is also found on numerous icons, mosaics and frescos from the sixth century on. The most startling example is the Christ Pantocrator icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, reliably dated to 550 CE. 

	Computerized overlay of the Shroud of Turin facial picture and the Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine's Monastery (550 CE). Images were scaled to the same size and shifted horizontally and vertically for alignment. No changes were made in the vertical to horizontal ratios.
		The picture at left is a computerized density average of the negative of the face and the Pantocrator icon above.

In the 1930's, French Shroud scholar Paul Vignon described a series of common characteristics visible in many early artistic pictures of Jesus. The Vignon markings, as they are known, all appear on the Shroud suggesting that it is the source of later pictures of Jesus.
 

• A square U-shape  between the eyebrows. 
• A downward pointing triangle or V-shape just below the U-shape, on the bridge of the nose.
• Two wisps of hair going downward and then to the right.
• A raised right eyebrow. 
• Large, seemingly "owlish" eyes. This may be the result of coins placed over the eyes.
• An accent on the left cheek and an accent on the right cheek that is somewhat lower.
• A forked beard. Dr. Whanger (see below) has suggested that this may the result of a chin band tied around the head to keep the mouth closed.
• An enlarged left nostril. 
• An accent line below the nose and a dark line just below the lower lip. 
• A gap in the beard below the lower lip. 
• Hair on one side of the head that is shorter than on the other side.
  

source

[annalex]

Christ Pantocrator icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery

(formatting of the previous post, that I ripped from a larger page, obscures the icon in my browser)

[PetroniusMaximus]

And may I add..

"For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

[annalex]

young plant

Veggietales are biblical too. What a relief.

[PetroniusMaximus]

And just for your own interest, check out the source of this picture.




http://www.artakiane.com/akiane_painting.htm

Totally extra-biblical, I know, but quite interesting none the less.

[annalex]

Thank you.

Her father's features (seen in one of the photographs) made a contribution as well.

But I don't see the two-tiered forked beard.

[Rutles4Ever]

George Michael with a beard?

Still, that's extraordinary artwork for an 8 year old.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***George Michael with a beard? ***

Maybe that's why Jesus didn't leave us a physical description.

He knew we would become so consumed with HOW he looked that we would fail to hear WHAT he said.

[biblewonk]

2. Catholics believe that Jesus established an authoritative group with the power to bind and loosen. This authority was to be divinely guarded by the Holy Spirit and their decisions would be binding on the followers of Christ. See Acts 15. Notice, there is NO SCRIPTURAL WARRANT to do away with circumcision. Peter and the others made their decision based on the teachings of Christ passed down to them and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. NO SCRIPTURE! Acts 15:28 - "it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit". All subsequent writings of the Church Fathers indicate this continuing belief in the God-given and guarded authority of the leaders of the Catholic church when brought together to rule on such and such interpretation - such as the question of "Is Jesus the Essence of God" at Nicene in 325. So Catholics, unlike non-Catholic Christians, have the security and freedom to KNOW that we have a divinely guided and protected magesterium that continues to teach, using Scripture and Tradition. Note that they both come from God, and can NEVER contradict each other.

You seem to be saying that before the book of Acts was written, there was no writing that was the same as the book of Acts. It doesn't seem to be a really strong point but I agree that before any book was written it didn't exist.

[Rutles4Ever]

You're absolutely right about that. What He actually looked like is not material to our salvation. I find the Nordic-Christ representations to be the most unsettling (you know, the blonde hair and blue eyes)...

[jo kus]

"Did not the RCC teach us that the universe was geocentric and punish heliocentricism as heresy?"

No. You will need to read up more on the Galileo case. You will find that it was geocentric scientists who pressured the Church to put a muzzle on Galileo for disagreeing with the Bible's literal interpretation. The Church has not taught that the earth is flat. We don't take a literal approach to Scripture in every case. Genesis 1-3 is not to be taken as literal science, but religious truths of God's love and God creating man out of nothing, etc., not that God made the world in 6 days. I would suggest you read the writings of Augustine and "the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" and other such writers of the Church who were able to reconcile Scripture with a spiritual interpretation.

The Church does not teach science. The Galileo case moves into the political arena, not science.

Regards

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Can you give an idea of how it answers the questions asked?***

I am a member of the Anglican church. The church we currently attend is PCA. We also visit the Southern Baptists from time to time. I take it you are familiar with the basic outlines of these administrative structures. I believe most all evangelical Protestant churches have both strong and weak point with regards to administration.

But I also believe the Bible teaches that there is no one divinely ordained church structure.

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." - 1 Cor 12




Just as there is no one divinely ordained order of service.


All things must be done decently and orderly, but there is a certain pragmatic freedom in Christ as to exactly how we organize ourselves.

[jo kus]

"You seem to be saying that before the book of Acts was written, there was no writing that was the same as the book of Acts. It doesn't seem to be a really strong point but I agree that before any book was written it didn't exist."

The point that I am making is that the Early Church was able to make decisions, to bind and loosen upon the entire Church, WITHOUT THE USE OF SCRIPTURE! We see here a precedence of action. The Church believed that the Holy Spirit guides them (Acts 15:28). They made a decision that was to be implemented throughout the world (Acts 16:4). That is the point. The Scriptures did not dictate the decision. This is brought up to show you that the Bible is not the sole source of faith of Christianity. The written Word of God is infallible and inspired by God. The Church defines nothing that goes against the Scriptures. God is a God of truth, whether speaking through Councils or through Scriptures. To better understand Catholics, one must understand that we realize that our Church has divinely guided authority to make decisions that are binding (or loosening) on the rest of the community. Sola Scriptura does not apply, especially in Acts 15.

Regards