He does look good on a thong.
Posted on 10/25/2006 6:22:33 PM PDT by Nachum
I could not care less how they portray Him physically. We don't know what He looked like. I doubt very much it would be historically accurate that He was black, as He was a first century Jew. But, really, if people carry Him in their heart, I don't care how they *see* Him.
susie
He does look good on a thong.
LOL!
You've got a good heart, Susie. Be well.
Amen!
Its good enough for all of us! If we just let it be.
The idea of 'reimaging' Christ is part of the severe wrong turn Western religious art took in the 13th century. This is not Orthodox chauvanism on my part, Pope Benedict in writings as a cardinal made the same point.
The plasticity of the image of Christ in the West is a subtle form of the same heresy the iconoclasts fell into--a denial of the reality of the Incarnation--or worse, a slide backward to a paganism that is happy with avatars of the divine, so long as they are generic, and multiple: a German Christ, a black Christ, a Mexican Christ, a female Christ, . . . Christ, the Divine Logos, incarnate of the Virgin Mary in the fullness of time, is replaced by household gods called 'Christ'.
"His arms were the size of tree trunks, and He had a shock of hair as red as the fires of Hell"
Oh, wait....that was Homer Simpson. Sorry.
.....wow...that was intelligent.....my fiancee lives in Montana.....she would not agree with you.....I guess you are saying Ronald Reagan was all that too....damn, too bad you feel that way.....
Or better - Martin Luthor King or Mohammed Ali played by PeeWee Hermnan.....
1. Yes.
2. No.
The first would be an accommodation to blacks. The second would be a violation of the Buddha's teachings.
Personally, I prefer depictions of Jesus that are as accurate as we can make them. The two best sources we have appear to be early icons, which may be based on earlier ones, and the Shroud of Turin. But nobody knows for sure.
He was a Jewish male, but there could be fairly considerable variation there.
Well, my heart is like everyone else's but Jesus is slowly changing it! ;)
Thanks, and you be well yourself!
susie
BTT
Since you've got everything out there in California, maybe you could pick up a sense of humor.
Jesus said...
"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew hands, eyes, organs, senses, dimensions??"
"If you prick me, do I not bleed? If you tickle me, do I not laugh!?!? Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!"
Well said my FRiend, and God Bless you!
The depictions of Christ in the Holy Icons are all patterned on the likenesses of Our Lord from the early Palestinian school and the Icon-Not-Made-By-Hands, with which they agree. The latter is a miraculous likeness Christ Himself produced and sent to King Abgar of Edessa to cure him of leprosy (King Abgar had expressed his faith that merely seeing Our Lord would cure him). It was carried off from Constantinople at the time of the Latin sack of the city, and was in Paris until it and the crown of thorns, also looted from Constantinople, were destroyed in the name of 'reason' by the French Revolutionaries.
It only talks about his feet, what about the rest of him? Brass? Probably not goldlish which is what brass is. Revelations was not meant to be literal, otherwise you'd have to explain someone producing double edged swords from their mouth. I don't think Jesus was a sword swallower.
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.