Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on June 20, 2015, 07:40:57 PM
-
My Avatar icon is taken from a painting by Gabriel von Max who was inspired by the story of Veronica wiping the face of Jesus on a cloth and finding the image of Jesus on the cloth. If you right click on the ikon and select view image you get much more detail. I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen. I first saw this image on a school visit to Helmesley church in north Yorkshire where a copy of this painting still hangs on the wall, and it made a lasting impression on me. When you look at it it seems to change from eyes open to eyes shut.
-
I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen.
So it's a Jesus you've created in your own image, then.
Nothing new about that at all I can assure, you, Alan. Absolutely nothing.
-
I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen.
So it's a Jesus you've created in your own image, then.
Not really, Shaker. I understand that this image existed long before AB ever saw it - in fact, long before he was born.
-
I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen.
So it's a Jesus you've created in your own image, then.
Not really, Shaker. I understand that this image existed long before AB ever saw it - in fact, long before he was born.
Alan said: I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen, which I understand to mean that Alan had a prior image of the Jesus of his imagination, the Jesus of his own making, which matches up to the painter's version which Alan will have encountered at some point and decided that by a remarkable coincidence it matched his conception of the likeness of Jesus.
The "my own" (i.e. Alan's) is the giveaway here.
-
I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen.
So it's a Jesus you've created in your own image, then.
Not really, Shaker. I understand that this image existed long before AB ever saw it - in fact, long before he was born.
Did you read Alan's statement?
-
Did you read Alan's statement?
Yes, I did. Did you? He first saw this image on a school visit; perhaps it was the first such image he had seen (I don't know), but it is the one that is closest to his own idea (an idea that was probably informed by this image). Mind you, in my virew, it is probably too European to be a true representation - not enough Middle Eastern Asian.
-
I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen.
So it's a Jesus you've created in your own image, then.
Not really, Shaker. I understand that this image existed long before AB ever saw it - in fact, long before he was born.
Alan said: I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen, which I understand to mean that Alan had a prior image of the Jesus of his imagination, the Jesus of his own making, which matches up to the painter's version which Alan will have encountered at some point and decided that by a remarkable coincidence it matched his conception of the likeness of Jesus.
The "my own" (i.e. Alan's) is the giveaway here.
So what?
-
Oh, you've been taking lessons from Alien!
-
Oh, you've been taking lessons from Alien!
Whatever!
-
I don't like it (sorry Alan), I'm not altogether comfortable with images of our Lord, and this one disturbs me.
-
Did you read Alan's statement?
Yes, I did. Did you? He first saw this image on a school visit; perhaps it was the first such image he had seen (I don't know),
Yes, I did.
He first saw this image on a school visit; perhaps it wasn't the first such image he had seen (I don't know),
but it is the one that is closest to his own idea (an idea that was probably informed by this image).
pure speculation.....
-
My Avatar icon is taken from a painting by Gabriel von Max who was inspired by the story of Veronica wiping the face of Jesus on a cloth and finding the image of Jesus on the cloth. If you right click on the ikon and select view image you get much more detail. I personally find it is closer to my own picture of Jesus than any other image I have seen. I first saw this image on a school visit to Helmesley church in north Yorkshire where a copy of this painting still hangs on the wall, and it made a lasting impression on me. When you look at it it seems to change from eyes open to eyes shut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOX3YQMIkU8
-
pure speculation.....
So, my response is no different to yours, Seb.
-
pure speculation.....
So, my response is no different to yours, Seb.
Which one?
-
Which one?
Sorry, Seb. I should have said Shaker's (initial) response. Mea culpa.
-
It matters not a jot what Jesus looked like. Why should it?
-
Some people seem to think it important, I suppose (as I said at the outset) because it somehow validates their belief if they think there's some artistic representation that matches their self-created mental image of Jesus. Perhaps it makes them feel as though it's just that little bit all made up.
-
I don't like it (sorry Alan), I'm not altogether comfortable with images of our Lord, and this one disturbs me.
I know a number of people who find this picture disturbing, and I can understand why, but to me it is a truly inspired image which somehow depicts the love and compassion of the suffering Jesus.
-
Alan what did you think of the picture the children related to, whom have claimed to have spoken to Christ?
-
1st commandment... Thou shalt not take unto thyself any graven image..
It has been the reason I have been one for relating God by looks to anything in the world...
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
After Christ, it is clear even then no one had seen God at any time...
But Jesus made God known to us.
I cannot see the need for a picture or image in our mind as God is always present...
-
Alan what did you think of the picture the children related to, whom have claimed to have spoken to Christ?
I have come across this before. It looks to be a very kind face, but I personally do not find it very special.
-
Some people seem to think it important, I suppose (as I said at the outset) because it somehow validates their belief if they think there's some artistic representation that matches their self-created mental image of Jesus. Perhaps it makes them feel as though it's just that little bit all made up.
I think some people are very visual. I think in images and need to 'see' something in my mind to fully engage with it, so I understand why some Christians feel the need to have their own visual image of Christ to lock on to.
-
I rather like this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
And this
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artists-a-z/e/artist/sir-jacob-epstein/object/the-risen-christ-gma-1092
And this
http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/image/0,8543,-10204720077,00.html
-
Alan what did you think of the picture the children related to, whom have claimed to have spoken to Christ?
I have come across this before. It looks to be a very kind face, but I personally do not find it very special.
I believe that is why graven images of anything in the heavens or earth is not allowed.. do you see yet?
-
I rather like this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
And this
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artists-a-z/e/artist/sir-jacob-epstein/object/the-risen-christ-gma-1092
And this
http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/image/0,8543,-10204720077,00.html
The image in the first link looks remakably like my imagined image of St Peter.
I find the clean shaven sculptures in the next two links interesting, but a bit too modern looking to be authentic.
-
Alan what did you think of the picture the children related to, whom have claimed to have spoken to Christ?
I have come across this before. It looks to be a very kind face, but I personally do not find it very special.
I believe that is why graven images of anything in the heavens or earth is not allowed.. do you see yet?
My interpretation of the first commandment relates to forbidding adoration of the image itself, rather than what it depicts.
Biblical images have inspired many artists for hundreds of years. I do not see anything wrong with artists using their creative gifts to depict images inspired by their faith. But we need to remember that it is the inspiration behind the created image that should be the source of our adoration.
-
I rather like this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
And this
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artists-a-z/e/artist/sir-jacob-epstein/object/the-risen-christ-gma-1092
And this
http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/image/0,8543,-10204720077,00.html
The image in the first link looks remakably like my imagined image of St Peter.
I find the clean shaven sculptures in the next two links interesting, but a bit too modern looking to be authentic.
That makes no sense at all. How can an image of a person be 'too modern'? We haven't evolved thst much in the last 2000 years.
-
I wondered what image would be the first to come to mind so I cleared thoughts and let the picture appear and, not really surprisingly for me, it was Christ of Saint John of the Cross by Dali.
-
I rather like this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
And this
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artists-a-z/e/artist/sir-jacob-epstein/object/the-risen-christ-gma-1092
And this
http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/image/0,8543,-10204720077,00.html
The image in the first link looks remakably like my imagined image of St Peter.
I find the clean shaven sculptures in the next two links interesting, but a bit too modern looking to be authentic.
That makes no sense at all. How can an image of a person be 'too modern'? We haven't evolved thst much in the last 2000 years.
It is the clean shaven look that puts me off. I know Roman nobility used to shave in this period, but do did not think Jewish carpenters or fishernen had this facility.
-
I wondered what image would be the first to come to mind so I cleared thoughts and let the picture appear and, not really surprisingly for me, it was Christ of Saint John of the Cross by Dali.
I saw that at the Seeing Salvation exhibition. Completely awesome.
It was a staggering exhibition actually. Well worth seeking out the exhibition catalogue if you didn't get there.
-
I rather like this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
And this
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artists-a-z/e/artist/sir-jacob-epstein/object/the-risen-christ-gma-1092
And this
http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/image/0,8543,-10204720077,00.html
The image in the first link looks remakably like my imagined image of St Peter.
I find the clean shaven sculptures in the next two links interesting, but a bit too modern looking to be authentic.
It's likely that men at the time were not clean shaven, but it is also unlikely that they had long hair and fair skin. Does an image need to fit the classic 'Light of the World' image to be 'authentic'?
What about this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnus_Dei_(Zurbarán)
-
To repeat:" it matters not a tiny bit what He looked like. Are people only persuaded into paying attention to Him by His looks? If so, how superficial is that!
-
That's why religious art is so powerful, BA. Whether the image is 'authentic' or not isn't the point; if is how an image speaks to the soul.
Did you look at the link to the Zurbaran?
-
I wondered what image would be the first to come to mind so I cleared thoughts and let the picture appear and, not really surprisingly for me, it was Christ of Saint John of the Cross by Dali.
I saw that at the Seeing Salvation exhibition. Completely awesome.
It was a staggering exhibition actually. Well worth seeking out the exhibition catalogue if you didn't get there.
Being a Glaswegian, it is a picture close to my heart, and it was an astounding bit of business. I remember going to see it when I was 11 in Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, a cathedral of art and being astounded by it, though it isn't my favourite in the collection which is Rembrandt' s Man in Armour - and there is a hint of a view of Jesus in that, it hints at wanting the cup of violence to be removed but accepting that it will not be. Then again my second favourite is Cadell' s Orange Blind with its hint of illicit afternoon delight.
In the end though both Bash and Alan are right here . It matters not to your belief what you see and yet it still might be useful for some to understand what others see. In the end were one to believe there is a clear case for it being in this (below) ad in anything else
http://tinyurl.com/qfjvfc8
-
That's why religious art is so powerful, BA. Whether the image is 'authentic' or not isn't the point; if is how an image speaks to the soul.
Did you look at the link to the Zurbaran?
I haven't looked at the link, yet.
But what you are describing is art appreciation, not religious appreciation. I think it very superficial, in religious terms, to be influenced by looks. It is so in any terms.
-
I'd reserve judgement til you've seen it, BA.
-
That's why religious art is so powerful, BA. Whether the image is 'authentic' or not isn't the point; if is how an image speaks to the soul.
Did you look at the link to the Zurbaran?
I haven't looked at the link, yet.
But what you are describing is art appreciation, not religious appreciation. I think it very superficial, in religious terms, to be influenced by looks. It is so in any terms.
Oi, you down there, stop digging!
-
I'd reserve judgement til you've seen it, BA.
I've had a look, and my first reaction is one of pure sympathy for the sheep, and then of animal rights, but not of thoughts of Jesus. It is the Cross which does that for me.
-
So Jesus isnt the Sacrificial Lamb of God? It doesn't move you to think on how helpless he was on our behalf, how bound he was to suffering?
When I saw that painting I could barely bring myself to look at it. And not because it is a cute lamb.
-
So Jesus isnt the Sacrificial Lamb of God? It doesn't move you to think on how helpless he was on our behalf, how bound he was to suffering?
When I saw that painting I could barely bring myself to look at it. And not because it is a cute lamb.
Yes He is, but to me that is properly brought home by the actual, brutal, reality of the Cross; and that always brings me to tears.. When I look at the sacrificed lamb, that renders me helpless, too, but for other reasons.
-
So Jesus isnt the Sacrificial Lamb of God? It doesn't move you to think on how helpless he was on our behalf, how bound he was to suffering?
When I saw that painting I could barely bring myself to look at it. And not because it is a cute lamb.
Yes He is, but to me that is properly brought home by the actual, brutal, reality of the Cross; and that always brings me to tears.. When I look at the sacrificed lamb, that renders me helpless, too, but for other reasons.
Yes, I agree with you on this.
-
I find images of the crucifixion too ubiquitous to have any kind of shock value - and they generally are sanitised versions of what a crucified body would look like anyway. The Zurbaran shocks because of the helplessness of the sacrificial lamb; it raises questions from a theological point of view - how bound was Christ to his sacrifice, was it something he chose or was it chosen for him? - but also sacrifice in general - how much choice do people have over the sacrifices they make, and is it ever justifiable to sacrifice someone or something that is helpless for the greater good? Here the image of the lamb could represent nature in general, which we have bound and sacrificed for our own ends.
It's a powerful work.
-
Even in the days when I was a Christian did any representations of Jesus, on the cross or otherwise, do anything for me at all!
Strange that, because I have always been moved by paintings of the crucifiction of Christ. It seems such a cruel method of execution and there were thousands in those days and for hundreds of years after that.
I used to wonder what actually killed them, but apparently it is very slow suffocation due to you becoming so tired that you are unable to find the strength to move your chest muscles to breathe in! Horrible death! .
-
I used to wonder what actually killed them, but apparently it is very slow suffocation due to you becoming so tired that you are unable to find the strength to move your chest muscles to breathe in! Horrible death! .
That was only the case if the legs were broken - with broken legs there's nothing to support the weight of the upper body, meaning that the torso would sag and, as you say, the victim would die of suffication; horrible but on balance not that long lasting, which is why in some cases victims would have their legs broken deliberately.
Otherwise, the victim could last for some considerable time and could expect to die of a combination of exhaustion, dehydration, blood loss, exposure .... not nice and not quick either. It would have been worse if you'd been young, fit and healthy, because you would have lasted longer. Take it away Wikipedia:
The length of time required to reach death could range from hours to days depending on method, the victim's health, and the environment. A literature review by Maslen and Mitchell identified scholarly support for several possible causes of death: cardiac rupture, heart failure, hypovolemic shock, acidosis, asphyxia, arrhythmia, and pulmonary embolism. Death could result from any combination of those factors or from other causes, including sepsis following infection due to the wounds caused by the nails or by the scourging that often preceded crucifixion, eventual dehydration, or animal predation.
A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He wrote that the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs. The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, leading to exhaustion, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. When no longer able to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes. Some scholars, including Frederick Zugibe, posit other causes of death. Zugibe suspended test subjects with their arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical. The test subjects had no difficulty breathing during experiments, but did suffer rapidly increasing pain,which is consistent with the Roman use of crucifixion to achieve a prolonged, agonizing death.
-
I used to wonder what actually killed them, but apparently it is very slow suffocation due to you becoming so tired that you are unable to find the strength to move your chest muscles to breathe in! Horrible death! .
That was only the case if the legs were broken - with broken legs there's nothing to support the weight of the upper body, meaning that the torso would sag and, as you say, the victim would die of suffication; horrible but on balance not that long lasting, which is why in some cases victims would have their legs broken deliberately.
Otherwise, the victim could last for some considerable time and could expect to die of a combination of exhaustion, dehydration, blood loss, exposure .... not nice and not quick either. It would have been worse if you'd been young, fit and healthy, because you would have lasted longer. Take it away Wikipedia:
The length of time required to reach death could range from hours to days depending on method, the victim's health, and the environment. A literature review by Maslen and Mitchell identified scholarly support for several possible causes of death: cardiac rupture, heart failure, hypovolemic shock, acidosis, asphyxia, arrhythmia, and pulmonary embolism. Death could result from any combination of those factors or from other causes, including sepsis following infection due to the wounds caused by the nails or by the scourging that often preceded crucifixion, eventual dehydration, or animal predation.
A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He wrote that the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs. The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, leading to exhaustion, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. When no longer able to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes. Some scholars, including Frederick Zugibe, posit other causes of death. Zugibe suspended test subjects with their arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical. The test subjects had no difficulty breathing during experiments, but did suffer rapidly increasing pain,which is consistent with the Roman use of crucifixion to achieve a prolonged, agonizing death.
I didn't know about the leg breaking bit, Shaker, but speaking as someone who is always ...strrrrretching ... I can't think of anything worse than hanging in that position!
-
i have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that Jesus came to show us how to live, not how to die. The idea of penal substitution has no place in a just world. So when I look at the Cross I see man's inhumanity to man. And I do think Jesus died for me in the sense that he tried to make the world a better place, and died for it.
When I was a Christian I was puzzled that the Christus Rex wasn't found in more places or homes. I rather like this one.
http://www.bookexcursions.com/delta/valparaiso_chapel_windows.htm
-
Even in the days when I was a Christian did any representations of Jesus, on the cross or otherwise, do anything for me at all!
Strange that, because I have always been moved by paintings of the crucifiction of Christ. It seems such a cruel method of execution and there were thousands in those days and for hundreds of years after that.
I used to wonder what actually killed them, but apparently it is very slow suffocation due to you becoming so tired that you are unable to find the strength to move your chest muscles to breathe in! Horrible death! .
Crucifixion was/is the very apex of brutality.. Bear in mind that Jesus had also been beaten and flogged: the flogging alone was enough to kill very often. And how do you assess the mental anguish?
-
I find images of the crucifixion too ubiquitous to have any kind of shock value - and they generally are sanitised versions of what a crucified body would look like anyway. The Zurbaran shocks because of the helplessness of the sacrificial lamb; it raises questions from a theological point of view - how bound was Christ to his sacrifice, was it something he chose or was it chosen for him? - but also sacrifice in general - how much choice do people have over the sacrifices they make, and is it ever justifiable to sacrifice someone or something that is helpless for the greater good? Here the image of the lamb could represent nature in general, which we have bound and sacrificed for our own ends.
It's a powerful work.
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." God chose Him to make the sacrifice, and He accepted that, though, not surprisingly, with trepidation.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
I don't think "bizarre" is the right word. It's difficult for you and me to appreciate why, or how, someone could commit to such an ordeal. But it is not only Jesus who has done that: there are people in history who have been prepared to sacrificed themselves, or place themselves in positions of deadly suffering for an ideal, or for others.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
I don't think "bizarre" is the right word. It's difficult for you and I to appreciate why, or how, someone could commit to such an ordeal. But it is not only Jesus who has done that: there are people in history who have been prepared to sacrificed themselves, or place themselves in positions of deadly suffering for an ideal, or for others.
except they are not, as you believe Jesus to be, God, so they are not working from the same basis of some vast eternal plan that they will be up and around in a couple of days and that what is touted as a sacrifice is a bit of an inconvenience and only happens because you decided it was necessary to beat yourself and semi-kill yourself because yourself wanted that
-
And while we are on the subject, the first few parents in Jonestown who took the kool aid and gave it to their kids, I can't begin to imagine their 'trepidation' but I have no respect for it, nor do I see why the act of early dying should per se be given any respect.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
I don't think "bizarre" is the right word. It's difficult for you and I to appreciate why, or how, someone could commit to such an ordeal. But it is not only Jesus who has done that: there are people in history who have been prepared to sacrificed themselves, or place themselves in positions of deadly suffering for an ideal, or for othre not, as you believe Jesus to be, God, so they are not working from the same basis of some vast eternal plan that they will be up and around in a couple of days and that what is touted as a sacrifice is a bit of an inconvenience and only happens because you decided it was necessary to beat yourself and semi-kill yourself because yourself wanted that
Jesus came here in human guise, able to feel as we all feel, and to say say that His suffering was "a bit of an inconvenience," is to trivialise what was an enormous ordeal. You may go into hospital for an operation that you know will result in pain, but that you will feel well later: the knowledge that you will come through it, does not make the pain any less.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
I don't think "bizarre" is the right word. It's difficult for you and I to appreciate why, or how, someone could commit to such an ordeal. But it is not only Jesus who has done that: there are people in history who have been prepared to sacrificed themselves, or place themselves in positions of deadly suffering for an ideal, or for othre not, as you believe Jesus to be, God, so they are not working from the same basis of some vast eternal plan that they will be up and around in a couple of days and that what is touted as a sacrifice is a bit of an inconvenience and only happens because you decided it was necessary to beat yourself and semi-kill yourself because yourself wanted that
Jesus came here in human guise, able to feel as we all feel, and to say say that His suffering was "a bit of an inconvenience," is to trivialise what was an enormous ordeal. You may go into hospital for an operation that you know will result in pain, but that you will feel well later: the knowledge that you will come through it, does not make the pain any less.
It does if we use the term 'death' to mean dead, not popping back up, not worrying about any possible permanence of the position. People worry about probabilities, none of that if you are an omniscient being whipping yourself then nailing yourself to a tree for your old mysterious ways. I mean, yep, owwww!, the nails are going to nip a bit but you're a deity, and it's all planned out, and as Bashful notes, lots of other people go through this stuff, and sometimes it's even reprehensible in the case of the nutters who blow themselves up with other people for the sake of the 72 raisins. To be honest this whole suffering and death shit, well it's literally a martyr complex and proves nothing generally but when you know you are only doing it for a bit, well it sort of undermines the whole thing.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
I don't think "bizarre" is the right word. It's difficult for you and I to appreciate why, or how, someone could commit to such an ordeal. But it is not only Jesus who has done that: there are people in history who have been prepared to sacrificed themselves, or place themselves in positions of deadly suffering for an ideal, or for othre not, as you believe Jesus to be, God, so they are not working from the same basis of some vast eternal plan that they will be up and around in a couple of days and that what is touted as a sacrifice is a bit of an inconvenience and only happens because you decided it was necessary to beat yourself and semi-kill yourself because yourself wanted that
Jesus came here in human guise, able to feel as we all feel, and to say say that His suffering was "a bit of an inconvenience," is to trivialise what was an enormous ordeal. You may go into hospital for an operation that you know will result in pain, but that you will feel well later: the knowledge that you will come through it, does not make the pain any less.
It does if we use the term 'death' to mean dead, not popping back up, not worrying about any possible permanence of the position. People worry about probabilities, none of that if you are an omniscient being whipping yourself then nailing yourself to a tree for your old mysterious ways. I mean, yep, owwww!, the nails are going to nip a bit but you're a deity, and it's all planned out, and as Bashful notes, lots of other people go through this stuff, and sometimes it's even reprehensible in the case of the nutters who blow themselves up with other people for the sake of the 72 raisins. To be honest this whole suffering and death shit, well it's literally a martyr complex and proves nothing generally but when you know you are only doing it for a bit, well it sort of undermines the whole thing.
We aren't going to agree - unusual, that!! But I simply don't think you can minimise the pain and suffering of something like crucifixion, or the like, as merely a transitory, easily-managed trial
-
I find images of the crucifixion too ubiquitous to have any kind of shock value - and they generally are sanitised versions of what a crucified body would look like anyway. The Zurbaran shocks because of the helplessness of the sacrificial lamb; it raises questions from a theological point of view - how bound was Christ to his sacrifice, was it something he chose or was it chosen for him? - but also sacrifice in general - how much choice do people have over the sacrifices they make, and is it ever justifiable to sacrifice someone or something that is helpless for the greater good? Here the image of the lamb could represent nature in general, which we have bound and sacrificed for our own ends.
It's a powerful work.
Much more so than the famous Ghent altarpiece by Van Eyck, where the bleeding sheep just looks bloody stupid (to me). Other parts of the latter work are intriguing though.
-
Given it was him choosing him and the actual death part was for a couple of days and given that he knew that being him, actually the trepidation is not only surprising, it's just bizarre.
The 'death' of Jesus was as nothing in comparison to all those who suffered as he did and possibly worse, as he was supposed to have popped up again alive three days later! ::)
You dismiss the death of Jesus "as nothing," when he was savagely flogged, tortured, and crucified? What world are you in?
-
What I don't understand why some consider the death of Jesus anymore horrible than that of any other victim of the barbaric act of crucifixion? I have no doubt they were all tortured before being nailed on the crosses.
Many innocent victims in the 21st century are killed very brutally by their murderers, having been made to suffer excruciating pain for hours or sometimes days before death brings them relief.
The unpleasant death of Jesus only received attention because he became the Christian icon, not because it was anymore ghastly than that of others suffering the same fate!
It's in part because the belief has evolved that he takes on the guilt and suffering of every human being in one act.
-
Can you not see the crucifixion as a symbol of human suffering? If there was no resurrection, as you believe, then his suffering is complete and final. To me it represents the endless human capacity to hate and destroy those whose inner light shines on our darkest places. It's safer to execute the Jesuses of this world because not to do so means listening, accepting, maybe even changing.
-
I used to wonder what actually killed them, but apparently it is very slow suffocation due to you becoming so tired that you are unable to find the strength to move your chest muscles to breathe in! Horrible death! .
That was only the case if the legs were broken - with broken legs there's nothing to support the weight of the upper body, meaning that the torso would sag and, as you say, the victim would die of suffication; horrible but on balance not that long lasting, which is why in some cases victims would have their legs broken deliberately.
Otherwise, the victim could last for some considerable time and could expect to die of a combination of exhaustion, dehydration, blood loss, exposure .... not nice and not quick either. It would have been worse if you'd been young, fit and healthy, because you would have lasted longer. Take it away Wikipedia:
The length of time required to reach death could range from hours to days depending on method, the victim's health, and the environment. A literature review by Maslen and Mitchell identified scholarly support for several possible causes of death: cardiac rupture, heart failure, hypovolemic shock, acidosis, asphyxia, arrhythmia, and pulmonary embolism. Death could result from any combination of those factors or from other causes, including sepsis following infection due to the wounds caused by the nails or by the scourging that often preceded crucifixion, eventual dehydration, or animal predation.
A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He wrote that the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs. The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, leading to exhaustion, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. When no longer able to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes. Some scholars, including Frederick Zugibe, posit other causes of death. Zugibe suspended test subjects with their arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical. The test subjects had no difficulty breathing during experiments, but did suffer rapidly increasing pain,which is consistent with the Roman use of crucifixion to achieve a prolonged, agonizing death.
I didn't know about the leg breaking bit, Shaker, but speaking as someone who is always ...strrrrretching ... I can't think of anything worse than hanging in that position!
The best explanation of the crucifixion I have ever come across is in Nick Page's book 'The Longest Week'. A wonderfully evocative book
-
Alan what did you think of the picture the children related to, whom have claimed to have spoken to Christ?
I have come across this before. It looks to be a very kind face, but I personally do not find it very special.
I believe that is why graven images of anything in the heavens or earth is not allowed.. do you see yet?
My interpretation of the first commandment relates to forbidding adoration of the image itself, rather than what it depicts.
Biblical images have inspired many artists for hundreds of years. I do not see anything wrong with artists using their creative gifts to depict images inspired by their faith. But we need to remember that it is the inspiration behind the created image that should be the source of our adoration.
King James Bible
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Do you know what is in the water under the earth? What is a likeness of anything that is in heaven above or in the earth beneath?
And God, did the likeness of the calf viewed in the shape from a cloud above make God pleased when worshipped?
If you know God in your heart why would you require an image?
-
Sass hast pronounced, so we must all bow to her great wisdom. Oh dear another pig has just flown across my window, I could start a pig farm! ;D ;D ;D
This is the person who criticises others for "dissing" her, and others. Look up, "hypocrite."
-
Sass hast pronounced, so we must all bow to her great wisdom. Oh dear another pig has just flown across my window, I could start a pig farm! ;D ;D ;D
If a pig flew past your window then you are the one having the illusions...
Are prone to seeing pigs fly past your windows? Don't touch the whiskey during the day... :D
-
Sass hast pronounced, so we must all bow to her great wisdom. Oh dear another pig has just flown across my window, I could start a pig farm! ;D ;D ;D
If a pig flew past your window then you are the one having the illusions...
Are prone to seeing pigs fly past your windows? Don't touch the whiskey during the day... :D
Erm, I think that Floo simply meant that the probability of you being correct was just as probable as a pig flying past her window. :)
-
You are the deluded one Sass if your posts are an indication of what passes for 'thought' where you are concerned!
FYI I only have a small glass of wine or sherry after 8pm in the evening. I don't drink whisky these days!
And yet you constantly accuse others of "dissing" you - as I pointed out yesterday. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
-
You are the deluded one Sass if your posts are an indication of what passes for 'thought' where you are concerned!
FYI I only have a small glass of wine or sherry after 8pm in the evening. I don't drink whisky these days!
It is difficult for you to live with the fact you have no faith and mankind only half accepts you. You think posts such as above actually do something for your standing on forum communities...
The difference between you and I, is clearly this:-
I don't give a flying fig what you or anyone else think of me.
YOU are not educated enough about Christianity or the bible to make decisions and discuss the beliefs of others...
My thoughts are based on facts when it comes to God and Christianity. You have no facts and therefore your thoughts on faith matters are useless. As for what you drink, if you can't take a joke give the sherry a miss. It won't do anything for lack of sense of humour... just cause you to post miserable drivel as above...
-
Sass hast pronounced, so we must all bow to her great wisdom. Oh dear another pig has just flown across my window, I could start a pig farm! ;D ;D ;D
If a pig flew past your window then you are the one having the illusions...
Are prone to seeing pigs fly past your windows? Don't touch the whiskey during the day... :D
Erm, I think that Floo simply meant that the probability of you being correct was just as probable as a pig flying past her window. :)
But she doesn't have knowledge to be able to make such a comment.
Ignorance may be bliss in her case it is just blooming idiotic folly...
What the bible says comes from God... Sure you have read it? ;D
-
What the bible says comes from God... Sure you have read it? ;D
And therein lies the whole difference between believers and non-believers.
You believe the Bible is "God's" word because a couple of its authors said so. Now that may be sufficient for you, Sass, but for many other people it's just an assertion with no evidence to back it up.