How important are symbols?

[marco]

A lot of Christianity comes in pictorial form. We never saw Christ but the world knows the handsome young man given to us by artists. The face of Christ has become recognisable.

At Christmas we have a baby which we adore; we have a famous picture of the exposed heart of Jesus; we have innumerable hymns that make us hurt with pity for him or make us feel guilty for having crucified him; and most powerfully of all we have the cross of Christ. In the Middle Ages people sought bits of the true cross; the wonderful tale of the enchanted chalice grew up. In Turin we may or may not have the shroud that caught his dying blood.


How important are these pictures in Christianity?


Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?

[marco]

The face of the true Christ would not be recognizable because of the lie that has been put out there. But that is the point of the lie, is it not, that is the purpose of the deceit. So that people will not recognize and may even turn away from the Truth when they see - or hear - Him.

You paint a picture of a rather limited Christ, unable to make himself known because of someone more powerful than he.

Christ is/was not handsome or attractive in appearance:

"...He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him..." Isaiah 53:2

You are assuming that this person, Isaiah, was somehow talking about Christ who was not of his time period. And we do not know whether these words - even if they did apply to Jesus - were spoken metaphorically. We are not told that the multitudes who came to see Jesus were repelled by his ugliness, so the prediction was not ratified. Why assume it is true?

The outside of the cup does not matter AT ALL. It is the inside of the cup that God sees, and the inside of the cup which matters.

This is proverbially true but has no bearing on what we are discussing since we cannot judge outside or inside.

[marco]

Where do you get the “abracadabra�? Bible doesn’t tell Jesus used magic, I have no reason to believe Jesus used magic. And by what the Bible tells, his disciples also cured people, so it was not just something that he kept to himself.

Christ's reported wonders would fall into the category of "magic" whether we like the term or not. I don't for a moment believe the fisherfolk around him went about doing miracles. If so, it's a great pity the power wasn't passed on to others, down the years.

If only the body is cured, people are not any better and probably just do more evil than if they would remain sick.

What on earth has evil to do with healing the sick? Do you honestly suppose that as soon as a cancer patient is discharged from hospital he/ she goes off to murder or steal? Does the Bible tell us this?


Humanity would have managed perfectly well without Christ. There were plenty of Roman citizens who were thoroughly moral individuals.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco,

The face of the true Christ would not be recognizable because of the lie that has been put out there. But that is the point of the lie, is it not, that is the purpose of the deceit. So that people will not recognize and may even turn away from the Truth when they see - or hear - Him.

You paint a picture of a rather limited Christ, unable to make himself known because of someone more powerful than he.

My apologies. I originally had the words '... would not be recognizable by many because of the lie...'

I took "by many" out because most if not all of us will not recognize Him by His 'face' (a face most of us will not have seen before He returns). His sheep will recognize Him by His voice (if indeed we are His sheep). Even after His resurrection, His own apostles did not recognize Him (at first), by His appearance. They recognized Him by His voice, His words.


But He is certainly capable of making Himself known and He has done so, just as He has said that He would.

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:14-16


Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.� John 14:21



How many truly seek Him, though, the true Christ, the true person He is? How many truly love Him?

Christ is/was not handsome or attractive in appearance:

"...He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him..." Isaiah 53:2

You are assuming that this person, Isaiah, was somehow talking about Christ who was not of his time period.

Isaiah is indeed referring to Christ. But even if you do not accept this as being true, you must admit that "Christianity" accepts this, yes? Still the image of Christ as a handsome and attractive "Jesus" is what "Christianity" presents to the world.

And we do not know whether these words - even if they did apply to Jesus - were spoken metaphorically. We are not told that the multitudes who came to see Jesus were repelled by his ugliness, so the prediction was not ratified. Why assume it is true?

We are not told much (in the gospels) about his appearance at all... although we are given some hints, such as my Lord being stricken with something, giving meaning to the whole "Physician heal thyself"; and also that he was a very small man (small enough to ride the colt of a donkey).

The outside of the cup does not matter AT ALL. It is the inside of the cup that God sees, and the inside of the cup which matters.

This is proverbially true but has no bearing on what we are discussing since we cannot judge outside or inside.

I'm not sure I understand your objection, sorry. Perhaps you could elaborate?


Someone had said earlier in the thread that the inside will be reflected on the outside appearance, and while it can be true that a loving person may also have a lovely appearance, the opposite occurs as well. The Adversary has a 'majestic' outer appearance, but he wishes for us to 'curse God and die'. My Lord does not have an attractive outer appearance, but the person He truly is, on the inside, is indeed beautiful. He gave His life for us. That is the person He is, regardless of His appearance.





Peace again to you!

[Tcg]

Science has no need to make Jesus look uglier.

Then, why the picture?

To provide an accurate depiction of what Jesus would have looked like.

The image shows that the person who made it, has not good understanding of humans.

It was created by an forensic anthropologist.

• Richard Neave (born c 1936)[1] is a British expert in forensic facial reconstruction. Neave became an expert in anatomical art and was on the staff of the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester. He has used his skill in recreating faces from skulls in police forensic work and in producing images of historical figures. One of his reconstructions was of a prehistoric bog body known as Yde Girl.[2] In 1998, a murder investigation resulted in a successful prosecution as a result of Neave's work.[3] Neave's archaeological reconstructions include Philip II of Macedon[4] and Midas.[5] In 2001, the television program Son of God used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel to depict Jesus in a new way. Neave constructed a face using forensic anthropology which suggested that Jesus would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in Renaissance art.[6]
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neave

Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

I think the point is that one can learn a lot about any religion by taking the time to study it.

The image is here nor there to me. I am more interested in how images are important to folk and what type of images are used to attract folk into a sect.

It simply cannot be denied that the sect you represent is specifically attracted to imagery of a European GOD and Jesus and Angels.

In that, as much as the JW organization claims to be separate from the main religions of Christendom, it is demonstrably still an apple which has not fallen far from the tree...if indeed that analogy is the best to use...perhaps the closer truth is really that the JWOrg is a twig of a branch of a trunk of the tree of Christendom, very much attached by those things it cannot let go of and be free from.

[1213]

To provide an accurate depiction of what Jesus would have looked like.

But they have nothing to support their image. It is total pseudoscience and it is really sad if people don’t understand the difference between fact-based science and pseudoscience.

It was created by an forensic anthropologist.

…with nothing to support it. I think it is an embarrassment for all forensic anthropologist.

[Tcg]

To provide an accurate depiction of what Jesus would have looked like.

But they have nothing to support their image.

Of course they do:

• "Reconstructing Jesus
  
  Matthew's description of the events in Gethsemane offers an obvious clue to the face of Jesus. It is clear that his features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era. And so the first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli archeology experts, who shared them with Neave.
  
  With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave used computerized tomography to create X-ray "slices" of the skulls, thus revealing minute details about each one's structure. Special computer programs then evaluated reams of information about known measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying a representative Semite skull."
  
  https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... 4/1282186/

That you don't like the image doesn't change the fact that the methods used to create it are reliable and accurate.



Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Tcg]



William: Would it be correct to assume that such skulls had similar type facial resemblance which allows one to identify 'race'?

[marco]

Even after His resurrection, His own apostles did not recognize Him (at first), by His appearance. They recognized Him by His voice, His words.


But He is certainly capable of making Himself known and He has done so, just as He has said that He would.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me."

I have never been comfortable with the comparison of people being seen as sheep that follow blindly in a huddle. There are of course many reasons for Christ not being recognised after the Resurrection. I would suggest that, although we do recognise the voice of a friend, we more readily recognise them by sight. Instance the telephone: I find it hard to tell which of my daughters is phoning, so alike are their voices. Jesus may have spoken like his brother and their facial similarity may have been sufficient to confuse.

How many truly seek Him, though, the true Christ, the true person He is? How many truly love Him?

I would say none except in the sense of loving a story. I'm sure many kids love Harry Potter. As a boy I was in love with Heidi; my mind created the most charming girl whom I was ready to travel to Dusseldorf to see, if my 8-year old self could have managed it.

When I made my first communion and joined my hands in perfect togetherness I am sure the object of my admiration was a very kindly person whose patience was infinite. But love? I think not.

Isaiah is indeed referring to Christ. But even if you do not accept this as being true, you must admit that "Christianity" accepts this, yes? Still the image of Christ as a handsome and attractive "Jesus" is what "Christianity" presents to the world.

We know next to nothing of the physical Jesus and so we are obliged to invent. I see no reason why we should not clothe his fine words in fine physicality. It is such a shame that a man possessed of reputed supernatural powers did not leave for us an image, nor did he record in unambiguous fashion the words that were so important, leaving them instead to be paraphrased by fallible scribes. Isaiah seems to be talking about someone else: Jesus was not rejected but was mobbed by multitudes, and in the following centuries was acclaimed by billions.

Someone had said earlier in the thread that the inside will be reflected on the outside appearance, and while it can be true that a loving person may also have a lovely appearance, the opposite occurs as well

Yes, Antonio in The Merchant of Venice says: "O what a goodly outside falsehood hath" like a nice apple rotten at the core. Since we have no direct contact with Christ we cannot evaluate the external or the internal, since the mere issuing of fine words shows nothing. All the rest is interpretation.

My Lord does not have an attractive outer appearance, but the person He truly is, on the inside, is indeed beautiful. He gave His life for us. That is the person He is, regardless of His appearance.

I may disagree with your conclusions, Tam, but there is no doubting your faith which is terribly hard to counter in argument. In a sense hope is already attainment.
Go well.

[1213]

…It is clear that his features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era. And so the first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli archeology experts, who shared them with Neave….

How it is clear? We don’t have any scientific evidence what Jesus looked like. Especially, if Jesus was born as the Bible tells.

But I can accept the image looks much like the person who had the skull. There just is no evidence Jesus looked the same.

…That you don't like the image doesn't change the fact that the methods used to create it are reliable and accurate.

I have not said I don’t like it. I just think it is pseudoscientific and not based on Jesus.