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?

[JehovahsWitness]

They must be very important. This is an image of what scientist think Jesus looked like:

I can honestly say that had this demented Christ presented himself to my boyhood I would have neglected church visits long before I lost his address....

I'm not sure why you describe this as a demented Christ. Very different than the images the church presents, but not demented in my view.


Your reaction seems to make the case that it matters very much that hymns and pictures are false, and that they remain so. Perhaps this answers why the church refuses to update it's images; a real Jesus would scare off it's customers.



Tcg

I have to agree, the image is of a man that might not be considered by some as particularly attractive, so Marco attributed dementure to him. [Isee above Emphasis MINE]

"Unattractive" = mental dementure = leave the religion.

I don't personally ascribe to this worldview but I think Marco has demonstrated that humans are indeed fickle creatures.

Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?

I can honestly say that had this demented Christ presented himself to my boyhood I would have neglected church visits long before I lost his address....

JW

[Tcg]

I don't personally ascribe to this worldview but I think Marco has demonstrated that humans are indeed fickle creatures.

I don't believe that either Marco or 1213's reaction is a sign of fickleness. Both, I believe, are an honest reaction to an accurate view of Jesus' likely appearance.


Given that the Christian Church has distorted Jesus' appearance for millennia, it is not surprising that a realistic image would cause a strong reaction. The Christian Church is not in the job of presenting reality, but rather warping it in order to attract converts.


Presenting Jesus as he most likely appeared is not going to help any salespeople win the monthly contest for the most converts attracted.



Tcg

[marco]

I don't personally ascribe to this worldview but I think Marco has demonstrated that humans are indeed fickle creatures.

Fickle I may well be, but let's ascribe that quality to my childhood where I would have fought to uphold the good faith of Santa and where I believed that my every action was superintended by a guardian angel.

My childhood view was of a man who was the incarnation of kindness, whose arms were comforting and whose words were consolation. He was disappointed should little Marco slip into an untruth and utter some mild profanity but on hearing "sorry" he was forgiving. Through centuries of imprimaturs this is the Jesus we have been given, not a man with a sword who tears folk from their families and insists on all or nothing.

The nails of love, the pierced side and cruel thorns, the open arms of forgiveness (for they know not what they do) and the fact that the Son of Man has nowhere to lie down (whatever that means) are all hugely persuasive. It takes a hard heart to turn away!

[Tcg]

It takes a hard heart to turn away!

Or perhaps a strong mind. For some reason, amongst the religious, emotions are valued over rationality.


Perhaps that is because rationality could never lead to religious conviction.



Tcg

[marco]

Perhaps that is because rationality could never lead to religious conviction.

Well oddly enough Aquinas was pretty rational in his Summa Theologiae where he discussed God's existence. In his famous hymn: "Adoro te devote" he writes:

Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur,
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius;
Nil hoc verbo Veritátis verius.

His reason for belief, he is saying, is that "sight, touch and taste in Thee are deceived but the ear alone can be believed." He continues "I believe whatever the Son of God has spoken, for there is nothing truer than the word of Truth itself."
Who can argue with that?

I suppose this means he believes because he believes. Great minds can bow to an infant in a crib, and not just the three wise strangers from the East.

[Tcg]

His reason for belief, he is saying, is that "sight, touch and taste in Thee are deceived but the ear alone can be believed." He continues "I believe whatever the Son of God has spoken, for there is nothing truer than the word of Truth itself."
Who can argue with that?

I guess no one can if we are to believe that God has spoken audibly to certain of his chosen faithful.


If we ask for verifiable evidence of this voice from heaven, there is no argument, it has not been provided.


If we return to the emotional appeal that is required for belief, then sure, this is believable.



Tcg

[marco]

If we ask for verifiable evidence of this voice from heaven, there is no argument, it has not been provided.

Jesus craftily anticipated this requirement for evidence by suggesting that those who believe without proof are better than those that insist on a proof. Jesus would not have done too well in a mathematics course which is perhaps why he devoted himself to Scripture.


There is something wonderful, I suppose, in feeling "chosen".

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Just the opposite, in fact.

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.


Who does that serve other than the Adversary, the father of the lie?

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44




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


(He also carried our sins and illnesses in his own flesh so that: "his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness" Isaiah 52:14)



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.

Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?

Sadly, yes, as this thread seems to be demonstrating.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[1213]

Science has no need to make Jesus look uglier.

Then, why the picture?

The image is an accurate replication of what a Palestinian man from Jesus' time would look like. The question is why would the church need to make him look prettier…

The image shows that the person who made it, has not good understanding of humans. Attributes of person are visible in persons face. For example, intelligence, love and empathy are things that shows in persons face. Jesus was very intelligent, loving and emphatic. Those doesn’t show in the “scientific� image. That is why I think it is not accurate, or reasonable or truthful image. But, it is not the skin color that is the wrong thing. I think it can be possible that the color is correct and I have no problem with that.

[1213]

I see him as rude to his mother and family, quick-tempered, demanding and insensitive to family needs. He uses magic to impress, not to benefit society as a whole. Humanity is not helped by having one leper cured or one blind man's sight restored. If Christ had possessed the ability or knowledge to explain how leprosy could be cured, medically and not by abracadabra, that would have been a greater benefit. ..

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.

But, I think humanity is not helped by curing their diseases. Only thing that could help is that the mind is cured. If only the body is cured, people are not any better and probably just do more evil than if they would remain sick.