Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mdmathis6
I think that "our unfortunate propensity to venerate bones and images as idols" is more than a little bit overblown by some folks. I'm not an iconoclast, and I find the iconoclastic tendencies in much of much of the (reformed|evangelical|pentecostal) branches of Christendom more than a little off-putting. It seems to me to accompany a discomfort with the reality of the Incarnation, a reality which is central to our Redemption. I think you dismiss "image" a little too easily.
46 posted on 04/02/2010 3:28:57 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: ArrogantBustard

You missed my point entirely; I’m operating from the point of view that we’ll never know for sure who’s image is on that cloth until God himself says...”yeah that’s me”. Even if it was his “earthly image” the Bible records in Revelation what Christ really looked like to John when Christ revealed himself to him.

There is a reason why God commanded us to have no idols or make any graven images purported to be things of heaven or spiritual things. There is a reason why God (or by proxy via Michael the arkangel) hid the bones of Moses and why we have very few physical descriptions of persons in the Bible.The few descriptions there are, help explain the the context of the accounts of these individuals and why the stories unfolded as they did.

The Bible itself is devoid of any physical descriptions of Jesus, and I don’t think it was by accident! A Roman Historian Tacitus had recorded a physical description of Jesus in a history book describing religions of the empire as the researcher had purportedly spoken to folks yet alive who had seen him when the book was being written(65-70 AD?)

He was described as being about 69 inches tall, 175 pounds and having grey eyes, other wise looking fairly ordinary like most Jewish males at the time. In other words, nondescript, not very attractive nor ugly, a real “mook” as they might say in NYC.


57 posted on 04/02/2010 4:26:46 PM PDT by mdmathis6 (Mike Mathis is my name,opinions are my own,subject to flaming when deserved!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson