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.
I have said before and I will repeat: I am either blessed or afflicted with whatever blessed or afflicted St. Joan.
Your stance is essentially correct. To the extent that it has anything to do with Christ, it may be interesting; but, treating it as anything special beyond that becomes a matter of idolatry. Some prefer the term "veneration" as opposed to worship because the conviction of using the term worship is apparently too close to home. None bother to note the words are synonymous and interchangeable. And in practice, everything these folks do and call it veneration is textbook definition of worship. But, if it prosper, none Dare call it treason - right. Goes back to my earlier points.
He referred to purgatory as a suburb of heaven, as opposed to a suburb of hell, the way it was supposedly looked at before. And, if I'm going to be honest about it, I never felt attached to or detached from the concept of purgatory. It didn't stick, because it didn't take. I do have to say, though, that contrary to what I used to think, I was not properly catechized at all, so I may be missing some or all of what is required to understand, and consequently hold close, the concept.
Seeing all of you in this discussion though, naturally led me to my catechism, and here's what it says:
'Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
'The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God's justice has been fully satisfied.'
Next, the following Scripture is cited:
'The fire will assay the quality of everyone's work: if his work abides which he has built thereon, he will receive reward; if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15). My catechism is a Baltimore, 1952 edition.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that during that EWTN program, the person providing the answers went on to state that sin, while forgiven, carried with it a fixed cost. This was in response to a caller who questioned him about justice.
The priest went on to state that while everyone who ascends to heaven experiences perfect joy, those who were more righteous, sinned less and kept the Lord's word and commandments more diligently in this life, enjoyed a more perfect vision or experience of God in the next.
I'm curious to know if the Orthodox posit something similar to this, or how they would view this question of justice and the beatific vision.
"I have said before and I will repeat: I am either blessed or afflicted with whatever blessed or afflicted St. Joan"
Agrarian is speaking of something different...I think.
History is fine. And yes that is the case. But, I'm pretty sure I know where you intend to go, so..
A few points.. 1) The Old testament is the old covenant - it is not a covenant for us. If it isn't for us, how do you presume to make the leap that it is. It is instructive; but, not binding on us.
2) The new covenant is predicted by the old and fulfills the old. The new covenant replaces the old. It is the new contract between man and God. If the old covenant isn't for us and the new covenant is, what good does it do to add to the old one?
3) The new covenant was sealed by Christ in the first century and put into effect. It is the covenant for Jew and Gentile alike. So anything that is legitimate to the old covenant had to be in before Christ sealed the new.
Kinda goes without saying, doesn't it, if I repeal prohibition, extending the law after it's repealed is sort of moronic. Ok, we'll drop the sortof.
Add to that, again, the fact that the oracles of God were entrusted to the house of isreal and the canon of the Old covenant is restricted by the sealing of the new. If Macabees was added after the sealing of the new covenant, the which it was, then where does that leave you - nowhere with no authority.
I've blown them out of the water in less than ten minutes and haven't even gotten to their content yet - which many think even more damning. Where, then, does that leave us.
On the basis of the above I find no reason to include them, much less argue about excluding them - we haven't established that they belong, contextually or otherwise. The opposite seems to be true. And once we review their content, that is rather well solidified.
So, while I'm willing to hear your arguments, which I've likely heard before. You've a lot to overcome in trying to sell it.
Why do we seek His image, we have been given His teachings. I don't believe and image from man, I believe the teachings of God. My image of Christ isn't close to this, it is the image of God. I can't describe it, I can't paint it, I can't draw it, and I wish I could. But, I belive in it, I know what it looks like.
Let me ask you a question. If Christ pays the debt of your sin, what is left to pay?
Let's think of a bill at the grocery. Your bill is 232.87.
Jesus steps in and hands them cash (no checks or IOU's from the big guy). You're covered. Everytime you sin and repent, he steps in and pays the bill. If there's nothing on the register, how can you owe anything? If you walk out of the store with your paid for groceries, are you stealing? Is the food less nutritious because he paid for it? More?
I mean I could ask you a lot of things here, these are pretty obvious. If purgatory was necessary to our faith and
the covenant was sealed by Christ, why do you suppose there isn't a single entry in the entire new testament mentioning it by name? Not one. Why do you suppose Orthodoxy never heard of it. If orthodoxy is part of the church and never taught this or unum sanctum, etc, who do you think was in error for teaching or not teaching these things. Does God arbitrarily just change the covenant? No. Somewhere in there is an answer for you - which you seem already to instinctively know. It isn't scriptural.
Heck, a lot of people turn the Bible into an idol. I've heard Protestant preachers have their congregations offer a prayer to the book at the beginning of services.
I said, I've never really been attached to, or detached from the concept of purgatory. And your grocery bill analogy, when juxtaposed against the 1 Corinthians passage I cited from my catechism, is not persuasive at all. I remember fr. guido sarducci postulating something very similar.
The Corinthians passage isn't speaking of purgatory. I know they cite it; but, I've been through piles of citation that have nothing whatever to do with what it attempts to support.
Try reading that whole chapter and breaking it down in form of exigesis. Don't attach to it what you're told, attach to it what the text holds. It's amazing what it actually does say as opposed to what attempts to nullify it otherwise.
While I don't discount that you may have heard this, I never have.. ever. My dad is a minister an missionary to Africa. I've been in just about every denomintation of church from Orthodox, Romanist, Protestant "mainline", etc. I've never heard of such a thing. Methinks you're getting propaganda or listening to the red-herring arguments Catholics tend to throw at protestants.
Protestants (mostly) look at the scriptures like we look at the Constitution of the US. It's the founding document. And all else is subbordinate to it. If you make a law and it violates the constitution, the law is then null and void. That is called respecting the authority of the founding. And that is how we check doctrine for veracity as christians. Problem is, as christians, we're not allowed to add to the covenant. Protestants, Catholics and cultists don't seem to so constrain themselves. And that's in large part why you all argue.
"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."
The concept of satisfying God's justice by temporal, or even post death "punishment" to some Orthodox theologians seems particularly anthropomorphic and vaguely pagan. It ascribes to God purely human emotions. This is not to say that we are not "punished" in this life. We are. Some of the Fathers have called this "pedagogical punishment". St. Isaac the Syrian writes:
"He who applies pedagogical punishments in order to give health, is punishing with love, but he who is looking for vengeance, is devoid of love. God punishes with love, not defending Himself — far be it — but He wants to heal His image, and He does not keep His wrath for long. This way of love is the way of uprightness, and it does not change with passion to a defense. A man who is just and wise is like God because he never chastises a man in revenge for wickedness, but only in order to correct him or that others be afraid (Homily 73)" This is not "atonement for sin", not a "satisfaction of God's justice". It is loving correction. After death, though, the suffering of the evil people is not something God contrives. St. Basil the Great says:
"The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves."
So in the end I think its fair to say that many Orthodox do not believe that God is somehow inflamed by a sort of righteous indignation that one of us miss the mark (which is what the Greek word amartia, Eng=sin means) and wants to whack us unless we grovel some, that He feels offended that we commit some act of lese majeste and so He's going to get us, make an example of us or whatever. That amartia cuts us off from God. God doesn't cut us off and He doesn't demand that we placate Him or satisfy His justice. His love shines on the good and the evil equally, which, by the way, is a better definition of God's justice, a sort of divine equity, than what we usually think. If I fail to become like God, if I choose to sin and cut myself off from God's love, I create the evil and I create my own damnation. In such a belief there is no need for the Baltimore Catechism theory.
I am interested in what the priest on EWTN said, however because what he said sounds like theosis in a way. Certainly the "works" he speaks of would seem to tend to advance one in theosis and that theosis is what would be measured, not the acts themselves at the Final Judgment. I may be reading too much Orthodoxy into what a Roman priest said, however.
I know this to be true. I can't remember who it was, and I don't think it was anyone who was Catholic, but I heard a religious person posit once that while we are in this world the presence of God is upon everyone, believer, non-believer, sinner, saint. But that when judgement is meted out, and that judgement is hell, His presence is removed, and that rattled me somewhat.
"He who applies pedagogical punishments in order to give health, is punishing with love,
I don't think people fully realize how restorative a just rebuke, well received, can be. Not only does it foster growth and spiritual health for the person in need of the rebuke, but it can create a great bond between the one who loves enough to rebuke, and the one honest enough to accept it.
Certainly the "works" he speaks of would seem to tend to advance one in theosis and that theosis is what would be measured, not the acts themselves at the Final Judgment.
I think that's pretty much what he was getting at.
'...asking Him fervently to give them in the hour of judgment a good defence before our God who judges all the earth.
What a beautiful portrait those words paint of Christ as our advocate.
By Thine own Blood, O Savior, Thou hast ransomed mortal men, and by Thy death Thou hast delivered us from bitter death, granting us eternal life by Thy Resurrection. Give rest then, O Lord, to all those who have fallen asleep in godliness, whether in wilderness or city, on the sea or land, in every place, both princes, priests and bishops, monks and married people, of every age and line, and count them worthy of Thy heavenly Kingdom.
This is beautiful too; touching upon the most noble and perfect love of God.
It is quite simple, really.
History is fine. That is good. Necessary, even.
And you agree that the High Priests of the Temple were the legitimate leaders of the Lord's only church before Jesus.
We are on the same page.
The next step is to ask you when the Septuagint was translated, by whom, and under whose authority.
And the answer to that is: in the third century BC, by scribes specifically sent by the High Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem to the Ptolemy's in Alexandria, so that the Jewish Scriptures would be a part of the collected knowledge there.
The Septuagint, designated by the High Priest of the Lord's Only Temple, contains 1 and 2 Maccabbees, among other books.
That was the Jewish Canon in the 3rd and the 2nd and the 1st Century BC, and in the 1st Century AD, at the time of Jesus.
The current Hebrew Canon was a creation of the rabbis in 90-100 AD, from the so-called Council of Jamnia. The rabbis were Jewish leaders, yes, but they were NOT the High Priests of the Temple. For the Temple had been destroyed in 69 AD. When the Temple was destroyed, the Hebrew Canon that became the Massoretic Text did not exist. Rather, the Septuagint Canon, designated by the High Priests, existed.
So, the High Priests, whom you have designated as the legitimate leaders of the Lord's Temple, selected the Septuagint Canon and had it translated for the Ptolemy's as the repository of Judaism. Thus the legitimate priests.
And thus the Scriptures of Jesus' day.
The rabbis, not Priests, without a Temple, and without authority, reduced the canon to eliminate the later works, which they considered to be Greek, and which, besides, tend to support the Christian message (hence the Christian's fondness for citing them).
You have argued that nobody has the authority to CHANGE God's oracle, the Scripture. And you are absolutely right.
The Scriptures of the Old Testament are indeed exactly what God's legitimate priests of his legitimate Temple said they were when they sent their scribes to translate the Septuagint. And 1 and 2 Maccabees were in that canon.
The Hebrew Canon that cut those books out was an amendment of the oracle of God, and abridgment. You have asserted that those books are an ADDITION to the canon. You are in error. Those books were considered canonical by the priests of the Temple.
Rabbis working a generation after the destruction of the Temple were neither priests nor any longer the legitimate leaders of the one true Church of God.
That Church was the Christian Church, and the Christian Church has always used the Septuagint Canon, ever since Jesus' days. The Septuagint Canon established by the High Priest of God's Only Temple in the 3rd Century BC.
The Christians did not dispute this canon for 16th Centuries.
Then Martin Luther abridged the canon that God's High Priests ordained, and substituted the illegitimate abridged canon of the rabbis-without-a-Temple.
You have asserted that there is no authority to change the oracle, which is Scripture.
And you're right.
Why, then, you insist on using an abridged version of the oracle is a mystery. There certainly is no authority for it. Unless you would like to asser that rabbis who were not High Priests of the Temple, as there were neither such priests nor any Temple any more, retained the authority to reverse the decisions of the High Priests of the One True Temple of four centuries prior.
There being no way around the real history of the matter, I look forward to the creative writing exercise which I am sure will be forthcoming in which a new history will be proposed to replace the inconvenient real one.
I am interested in the Truth, wherever that may be.
We don't! In His divine majesty, He gave it to us. We don't need His image to believe in Him. Perhaps He recognized the human weakness that desires to keep a picture of a wife, husband and/or children on our desk at the office, and bequeathed this gift to His children.
A full blooded Jew ... from the House of David.
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.