All the more reason not to picture him at all, then. It makes me think the Muslims are onto something with their ban on depicting images of the prophets, of which Jesus is one for them.
Yes.
There's a whole field of psychology about how we value people's opinions more and ascribe all sorts of positive qualities to them if they look nice.
I shudder to think of the effects of perceiving people as looking like Jesus. We already have quite enough trouble over the question of whether you have to be the same gender as Jesus to be sufficiently godly.
I read part of a book by A.N. Wilson, called Our Times, a history of postwar Britain. It was interesting, but at times he seemed to be going out of his way to be contrarian, eg. at one point, he seemed to be defending the British position during the Suez Crisis, on the grounds that the Yanks, who opposed the invasion, went on to do similar stuff later on.
I misplaced the book before I could finish it. The photo section had a picture of the Sex Pistols, and said that they were sort of articulating the same viewpoint as Thatcher did a few years later. I guess both were reactions against the stagnation of mid-70s British culture?
All the more reason not to picture him at all, then. It makes me think the Muslims are onto something with their ban on depicting images of the prophets, of which Jesus is one for them.
Yes.
There's a whole field of psychology about how we value people's opinions more and ascribe all sorts of positive qualities to them if they look nice.
I shudder to think of the effects of perceiving people as looking like Jesus. We already have quite enough trouble over the question of whether you have to be the same gender as Jesus to be sufficiently godly.
Doesn't Isaiah's passage about the suffering servant say that "he had no beauty to attract us"? Perhaps Jesus was very ugly!
Maybe. Or simply average: someone who might not stand out at the street market or the synagogue. As opposed to having someone looking like Apollo drawing followers to him by his looks and apparent power.
Hmmm...I wonder if that sometimes helped when Jesus was trying to give the authorities the slip? They might have been looking for someone who really stood out.
I read part of a book by A.N. Wilson, called Our Times, a history of postwar Britain. It was interesting, but at times he seemed to be going out of his way to be contrarian, eg. at one point, he seemed to be defending the British position during the Suez Crisis, on the grounds that the Yanks, who opposed the invasion, went on to do similar stuff later on.
Eisenhower ultimately regretted the policy he pursued in the Suez crisis. A decade later, he told Nixon his action had prevented Britain and France from playing a constructive role in the Middle East, and that U.S. actions to reverse the crisis for Nasser’s benefit didn’t help. Nasser became even more anti-West and anti-U.S. Years later, Nixon described the Suez crisis as “the greatest foreign policy blunder the United States has made since the end of World War Two.”
The ultimate source of this information is a book by Peter W. Rodman called More Precious Than Peace: The Cold War and the Struggle for the Third World, though I only saw it quoted in another book.
All the more reason not to picture him at all, then. It makes me think the Muslims are onto something with their ban on depicting images of the prophets, of which Jesus is one for them.
Yes.
There's a whole field of psychology about how we value people's opinions more and ascribe all sorts of positive qualities to them if they look nice.
I shudder to think of the effects of perceiving people as looking like Jesus. We already have quite enough trouble over the question of whether you have to be the same gender as Jesus to be sufficiently godly.
Doesn't Isaiah's passage about the suffering servant say that "he had no beauty to attract us"? Perhaps Jesus was very ugly!
I'm not saying that Jesus would match our current perceptions of attractiveness. I'm saying that knowing what Jesus looked like would be liable to turn "looking like Jesus" into a new category of attractiveness, at least amongst some Christians.
EDIT: And my second point was that one of the few things we know about Jesus' appearance, that he was male, appears to have already helped lead some Christians to the belief that males are holier. Though the whole thing about Adam getting Eve as an assistant probably also played a part.
With the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian depictions of Yeshu seem to stem from the icons of the Image of Edessa, regardless of what hair or eye color is assigned.
Hello again, @undead_rat. Is it just recently that you have started referring to Jesus as “Yeshu”? I don’t remember ever seeing that in your posts at CAF. In fact I don’t remember ever seeing that form of the name being used by anybody except as a putdown, labelling him with a nonexistent (in Hebrew) name as a snide way of implying that he was a nonexistent person, a purely fictional character. The usual Hebrew form is with a final –a, Yeshua, which is a shortened form of Yehoshua (Joshua).
They said it was costing them too much to keep it going. The Catholic Answers website still exists, it was just the forums that they closed down. They had been going for quite a long time, since the early 2000s I believe, though I had been there only since 2015. It took a lot of modding, too many angry posters trying to shout louder than everyone else.
@undead_rat, I just saw this post of yours on another thread (now closed):
I know that some of you are put off by that suffix. I view "ben Pantera," --the son of the Panther-- to be a reference to YHWH, despite the fact that the Rabbis did not intend it that way.
No, "Panthera" is intended as a crude pun on Parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.
The biological relics bother me a bit, but fortunately I've never been around one. Besides the "ick!" factor, it seems rather a rude thing to do. (Presuming that it really is part of the remains of a dead person.) I'm guessing prior consent from the person doesn't come into it.
I am envisioning a very holy person on their deathbed, and the local priest/nun/cardinal/whatever is holding a clipboard with a form, saying, "With this form you acknowledge that any or all of your bones, hair, clothing, or personal effects can and may be used as relics of the first, second, or third class for the edification of the faithful and, if deemed worthy, for the effecting of miracles. Please sign here, and initial here, here, and here. Thank you, and please pray for us when you cross over."
A bit like a donor card....? (I am now indulging in irreverent speculations about the level of spiritual "boost" one might get from a kidney transplant, or even a blood transfusion, from a canonised donor...)
That's strong support for an argument that the Image is not genuine, but rather that its sudden appearance in time for the politico-religious debate about icons was not co-incidental.
I am not sure what you mean by "not genuine." Do you mean that the ancient characterization as "not made by hands" is incorrect or that the Image did not stem from the first century (or, perhaps, both) ?
Since the Image was lost to history in 1204, science is obviously not able to examine the linen cloth or date it by 14C. It was (and still is) regarded as genuine by the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as the by the Armenian Church of the East.
Is this not traditionally a separate image called Veronica's Veil?
So... is your point that we ought to use and venerate icons a lot more? Is that something that you personally find helpful?
According to Wilson* the legend of Veronica stems from the Mandylion (which is what the Byzantines came to call the Image of Edessa.) The painting of icons was a religious practice of the Orthodox Church, and a "true" icon was a special kind which could only be made by touching the finished icon to the holy object that it depicted. Not possible for biblical scenes of course, but very possible for the Mandylion. The Greek work for true is "vera," so a true icon is a "vera iconica." Some of these true icons were sold or given to visiting members of the Catholic Church and then taken to Rome or other Italian cities. They became known by a conflation of the Greek words which described them, "veronica," and a legend arose about a woman who held a towel to Yeshu's face as He carried His cross.
Wilson reports that several Italian cites claimed to have this holy cloth and that the Pope had to intervene to sort the mess out.
*Holy Faces, Secret Places, Ian Wilson
I have my collection of Mandylion icons for their relationship to a subject which I now find myself prohibited from discussing.
"Panthera" is intended as a crude pun on Parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.
Jewish legend is that Yeshu was the son of a Roman soldier named "Pantera." This soldier may have been Jewish. Perhaps he was in love with Mary, but prohibited from marrying her because he had enlisted in a Roman archery battalion (thereby becoming persona non grata to the Jewish community.)
When Mary was found to be in a family way, society assumed the worst.
I don’t remember ever seeing that form of the name being used by anybody except as a putdown, labelling him with a nonexistent (in Hebrew) name as a snide way of implying that he was a nonexistent person, a purely fictional character. The usual Hebrew form is with a final –a, Yeshua, which is a shortened form of Yehoshua (Joshua).
My understanding is that the shorter version, Yeshu, was used in the Galilean dialect of Aramaic. The "put-down" that was promoted by His rabbinic contemporaries is that the letters of YESHU form a anacronym for "May His Name Be Forgotten."
By using His original Galilean name, I falsify that proposition.
That's strong support for an argument that the Image is not genuine, but rather that its sudden appearance in time for the politico-religious debate about icons was not co-incidental.
I am not sure what you mean by "not genuine." Do you mean that the ancient characterization as "not made by hands" is incorrect or that the Image did not stem from the first century (or, perhaps, both) ?
Since the Image was lost to history in 1204, science is obviously not able to examine the linen cloth or date it by 14C. It was (and still is) regarded as genuine by the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as the by the Armenian Church of the East.
By "not genuine" I meant that it was not in fact first century.
@undead_rat - please cease the use of the name *Yeshu* immediately.
It is offensive and blasphemous to some Christians for the Holy Name of our Lord and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, to be substituted in this way.
JESUS is the name at which every knee shall bow - yours included, one day.
JESUS is the name given to the Son of the Most High, the Lord who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is.
Your soul is in grave peril of many extra years of pain in Purgatory if you do not heed these solemn words of warning, which the Lord has given to me, in a dream.
Hmmm. Respectfully, your last paragraph (which seems sarcastic) kind of twists the rest of it (which seems serious).
I assumed Bishop Finger's whole post was ironic. Granted, I don't have an entirely distinct concept of his worldview, but he has never struck me as the kind of person who would take grave offense at something like that.
(Admittedly, most Shipmates are not like that either.)
Hmmm. Respectfully, your last paragraph (which seems sarcastic) kind of twists the rest of it (which seems serious).
I assumed Bishop Finger's whole post was ironic. Granted, I don't have an entirely distinct concept of his worldview, but he has never struck me as the kind of person who would take grave offense at something like that.
(Admittedly, most Shipmates are not like that either.)
It was, I confess, only partly ironic, as I do find undead_rat's use of the name Yeshu slightly offensive. Whether or not it's blasphemous isn't, perhaps, for me to say, but I wish he'd stop doing it.
I mischievously wondered if perhaps a post in undead_rat's own inimitable style might have some effect...but alas! I've been rumbled.
@undead_rat - please cease the use of the name *Yeshu* immediately.
It is offensive and blasphemous to some Christians for the Holy Name of our Lord and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, to be substituted in this way.
JESUS is the name at which every knee shall bow - yours included, one day.
JESUS is the name given to the Son of the Most High, the Lord who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is.
Your soul is in grave peril of many extra years of pain in Purgatory if you do not heed these solemn words of warning, which the Lord has given to me, in a dream.
"Yeshua" is the name used by Messianic Jews and it stems from the Hebrew name Yehoshua which is still in use today. Yeshu is the Galilean version and is most likely how our sacred Teacher was addressed in Galilee. I just don't get the offense given by the respectful use of His original name. Aren't you offended by the constant use of "Jesus" as an expletive and swear word? I certainly am.
Well, quite. What a shame I've run out of Irony-O-Meters for sale...
Perhaps I should have said (or perhaps not, as he won't take any notice) that I find undead_rat's insistence on Yeshu, or whatever, rather condescending, as in *Look how much cleverer I am than all these unbelieving heretics! What a brainy and well-read chap I am!*
That reminds me of the lines in Andrew Marvell's poem To His Coy Mistress, where the narrator addresses his reluctant lady saying, *And you should, if you please, refuse/Till the conversion of the Jews* - IOW, for ever...
Jewish author Mark Niyr uses "Yeshua" throughout his new book. What's the big deal?
Yeshua is the standard Hebrew form of the name Jesus. You can see it here, for instance, in Matt 1:1 in the Hebrew translation of the New Testament in use by most churches, including the Catholic Church, in Israel: Yeshua ha-Mashiach, Jesus the Anointed (the Messiah, the Christ).
The spelling you are mischievously using here is better avoided.
I find that a bit much, knowing some of them, and what they've suffered.
I know one or two Messianics, who were born Christians. It slightly irks me the way that they call themselves "Jews", without qualification, since that can be a little misleading for listeners who don't know much about the religions in question. And of course, I disagree with them on Israel and the middle east, plus their whole Lindsey-inspired eschatology.
Other than that, it seems to provide some meaningful spiritual content to their lives, and is not, AFAICT, doing them measurable harm. But what is it that you think they "have suffered"? The ones I know joined very much voluntarily, and live in a country(Canada) where religious persecution(at least of Christians) isn't really a thing.
You appear to be discussing Gentile-born Christians who for whatever reason have identified themselves with Messianic Judaism. I'm talking of people born Jews, who grew up Jewish, and became believers in Jesus--usually to severely bad effects on their family lives. Yes, that is suffering, trust me.
There's messianic Jews and then there's Messianic Jews. There is a large body going by the name of Messianic Judaism, that is a branch of Evangelical Christianity and consists of many (perhaps mostly) Christians who want to feel Jewish. It has almost nothing to do with Jews who have converted to Christianity and are being persecuted by their families, for whom I have all the sympathy in the world. I apologize for blurring the line. I am dismissing the former not the latter.
Well, I have to say, that sounds weird to me, too. I think we're called to stay what we are, as Paul said. (I had never heard of such a thing before, that's just strange.)
Just for clarity, I was refering to Messianic Jews in Mousethief's capital-lettered meaning ie. members of Christian evangelical sects who adopt a Jewish identity, in pursuit of the eschatological goal of converting all Jews.
Well, I have to say, that sounds weird to me, too. I think we're called to stay what we are, as Paul said. (I had never heard of such a thing before, that's just strange.)
For a real eye-opener, go to YouTube and check out "Hava Nagila Texas Style".
Thanks for the link. Fun. I love it! I noticed something odd: the instrument the fiddler was using. Looked kind of like a violin, but narrower and much smaller, no tuning pegs--and FIVE strings. Given the missing pegs, I figured it had to be electric/electronic. And I found lots of online listings. Here are some (Electric Violin Shop). The ones on the right are like what the fiddler used. The other two look...amazing.
I haven't yet had time to read up on this. The extra string is the lowest pitched--a C string. I wonder if it's related to Hardanger fiddles from Norway. Two extra "drone" strings, also the lowest pitched.
From what I could tell amongst the enthusiastic music in the video, the 5 string sounded pretty normal. I much prefer acoustic instruments, though I can enjoy electronic--depending on the music.
Oh, and the right-hand list on the Texas Hava Nagila page has other versions, including Japanese. Will listen to that tomorrow.
Personally I find the whole "evangelicals adoping a pseudo-Jewish identity" thing quite offensive for exactly this reason - that it obscures and distorts other peeople's knowledge and opinions about actual Jews who have actually converted to Christianity.
But perhaps it is none of my business. Perhaps actual converted Jews are quite happy about the activities of these (to my mind) "fake" Messianic Jews. In which case who am I to complain?
It would be interesting to know. Does anyone have any first-hand information about this?
Comments
Yes.
There's a whole field of psychology about how we value people's opinions more and ascribe all sorts of positive qualities to them if they look nice.
I shudder to think of the effects of perceiving people as looking like Jesus. We already have quite enough trouble over the question of whether you have to be the same gender as Jesus to be sufficiently godly.
I read part of a book by A.N. Wilson, called Our Times, a history of postwar Britain. It was interesting, but at times he seemed to be going out of his way to be contrarian, eg. at one point, he seemed to be defending the British position during the Suez Crisis, on the grounds that the Yanks, who opposed the invasion, went on to do similar stuff later on.
I misplaced the book before I could finish it. The photo section had a picture of the Sex Pistols, and said that they were sort of articulating the same viewpoint as Thatcher did a few years later. I guess both were reactions against the stagnation of mid-70s British culture?
Doesn't Isaiah's passage about the suffering servant say that "he had no beauty to attract us"? Perhaps Jesus was very ugly!
Hmmm...I wonder if that sometimes helped when Jesus was trying to give the authorities the slip? They might have been looking for someone who really stood out.
Eisenhower ultimately regretted the policy he pursued in the Suez crisis. A decade later, he told Nixon his action had prevented Britain and France from playing a constructive role in the Middle East, and that U.S. actions to reverse the crisis for Nasser’s benefit didn’t help. Nasser became even more anti-West and anti-U.S. Years later, Nixon described the Suez crisis as “the greatest foreign policy blunder the United States has made since the end of World War Two.”
The ultimate source of this information is a book by Peter W. Rodman called More Precious Than Peace: The Cold War and the Struggle for the Third World, though I only saw it quoted in another book.
I'm not saying that Jesus would match our current perceptions of attractiveness. I'm saying that knowing what Jesus looked like would be liable to turn "looking like Jesus" into a new category of attractiveness, at least amongst some Christians.
EDIT: And my second point was that one of the few things we know about Jesus' appearance, that he was male, appears to have already helped lead some Christians to the belief that males are holier. Though the whole thing about Adam getting Eve as an assistant probably also played a part.
Hello again, @undead_rat. Is it just recently that you have started referring to Jesus as “Yeshu”? I don’t remember ever seeing that in your posts at CAF. In fact I don’t remember ever seeing that form of the name being used by anybody except as a putdown, labelling him with a nonexistent (in Hebrew) name as a snide way of implying that he was a nonexistent person, a purely fictional character. The usual Hebrew form is with a final –a, Yeshua, which is a shortened form of Yehoshua (Joshua).
Please, what is CAF?
I wonder why it closed?
@TurquoiseTastic, you win the interweb for today!
I know that some of you are put off by that suffix. I view "ben Pantera," --the son of the Panther-- to be a reference to YHWH, despite the fact that the Rabbis did not intend it that way.
No, "Panthera" is intended as a crude pun on Parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.
I am envisioning a very holy person on their deathbed, and the local priest/nun/cardinal/whatever is holding a clipboard with a form, saying, "With this form you acknowledge that any or all of your bones, hair, clothing, or personal effects can and may be used as relics of the first, second, or third class for the edification of the faithful and, if deemed worthy, for the effecting of miracles. Please sign here, and initial here, here, and here. Thank you, and please pray for us when you cross over."
I am not sure what you mean by "not genuine." Do you mean that the ancient characterization as "not made by hands" is incorrect or that the Image did not stem from the first century (or, perhaps, both) ?
Since the Image was lost to history in 1204, science is obviously not able to examine the linen cloth or date it by 14C. It was (and still is) regarded as genuine by the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as the by the Armenian Church of the East.
Wilson reports that several Italian cites claimed to have this holy cloth and that the Pope had to intervene to sort the mess out.
*Holy Faces, Secret Places, Ian Wilson
I have my collection of Mandylion icons for their relationship to a subject which I now find myself prohibited from discussing.
I think that this passage would apply to Yeshu after He was assaulted by the Roman guards.
I definitely have to go pick up my new eyeglasses. I read "things like sphincters of the True Cross..."
Jewish legend is that Yeshu was the son of a Roman soldier named "Pantera." This soldier may have been Jewish. Perhaps he was in love with Mary, but prohibited from marrying her because he had enlisted in a Roman archery battalion (thereby becoming persona non grata to the Jewish community.)
When Mary was found to be in a family way, society assumed the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Julius_Abdes_Pantera
My understanding is that the shorter version, Yeshu, was used in the Galilean dialect of Aramaic. The "put-down" that was promoted by His rabbinic contemporaries is that the letters of YESHU form a anacronym for "May His Name Be Forgotten."
By using His original Galilean name, I falsify that proposition.
By "not genuine" I meant that it was not in fact first century.
It is offensive and blasphemous to some Christians for the Holy Name of our Lord and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, to be substituted in this way.
JESUS is the name at which every knee shall bow - yours included, one day.
JESUS is the name given to the Son of the Most High, the Lord who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is.
Your soul is in grave peril of many extra years of pain in Purgatory if you do not heed these solemn words of warning, which the Lord has given to me, in a dream.
Hmmm. Respectfully, your last paragraph (which seems sarcastic) kind of twists the rest of it (which seems serious).
I assumed Bishop Finger's whole post was ironic. Granted, I don't have an entirely distinct concept of his worldview, but he has never struck me as the kind of person who would take grave offense at something like that.
(Admittedly, most Shipmates are not like that either.)
It was, I confess, only partly ironic, as I do find undead_rat's use of the name Yeshu slightly offensive. Whether or not it's blasphemous isn't, perhaps, for me to say, but I wish he'd stop doing it.
I mischievously wondered if perhaps a post in undead_rat's own inimitable style might have some effect...but alas! I've been rumbled.
"Yeshua" is the name used by Messianic Jews and it stems from the Hebrew name Yehoshua which is still in use today. Yeshu is the Galilean version and is most likely how our sacred Teacher was addressed in Galilee. I just don't get the offense given by the respectful use of His original name. Aren't you offended by the constant use of "Jesus" as an expletive and swear word? I certainly am.
https://amazon.com/Turin-Shroud-Physical-Evidence-Perspective/dp/1634988078/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1GK4H5LF2G15T&dchild=1&keywords=shroud+of+turin&qid=1613159780&s=books&sprefix=shroud%2Cstripbooks%2C165&sr=1-3
Jewish author Mark Niyr uses "Yeshua" throughout his new book. What's the big deal?
Now may we return to this thread's topic?
Perhaps I should have said (or perhaps not, as he won't take any notice) that I find undead_rat's insistence on Yeshu, or whatever, rather condescending, as in *Look how much cleverer I am than all these unbelieving heretics! What a brainy and well-read chap I am!*
Which, of course, he may well be...
That reminds me of the lines in Andrew Marvell's poem To His Coy Mistress, where the narrator addresses his reluctant lady saying, *And you should, if you please, refuse/Till the conversion of the Jews* - IOW, for ever...
Yeshua is the standard Hebrew form of the name Jesus. You can see it here, for instance, in Matt 1:1 in the Hebrew translation of the New Testament in use by most churches, including the Catholic Church, in Israel: Yeshua ha-Mashiach, Jesus the Anointed (the Messiah, the Christ).
The spelling you are mischievously using here is better avoided.
https://haktuvim.co.il/en/study/Matt.1
The argument that the name Jesus is often used as an expletive is hardly relevant, as such usage doesn't happen often on these boards (I think...).
I find that a bit much, knowing some of them, and what they've suffered.
I know one or two Messianics, who were born Christians. It slightly irks me the way that they call themselves "Jews", without qualification, since that can be a little misleading for listeners who don't know much about the religions in question. And of course, I disagree with them on Israel and the middle east, plus their whole Lindsey-inspired eschatology.
Other than that, it seems to provide some meaningful spiritual content to their lives, and is not, AFAICT, doing them measurable harm. But what is it that you think they "have suffered"? The ones I know joined very much voluntarily, and live in a country(Canada) where religious persecution(at least of Christians) isn't really a thing.
For a real eye-opener, go to YouTube and check out "Hava Nagila Texas Style".
I haven't yet had time to read up on this. The extra string is the lowest pitched--a C string. I wonder if it's related to Hardanger fiddles from Norway. Two extra "drone" strings, also the lowest pitched.
From what I could tell amongst the enthusiastic music in the video, the 5 string sounded pretty normal. I much prefer acoustic instruments, though I can enjoy electronic--depending on the music.
Oh, and the right-hand list on the Texas Hava Nagila page has other versions, including Japanese. Will listen to that tomorrow.
Yeah, questionable theology aside, it is a pretty competently rendered genre mash-up.
But perhaps it is none of my business. Perhaps actual converted Jews are quite happy about the activities of these (to my mind) "fake" Messianic Jews. In which case who am I to complain?
It would be interesting to know. Does anyone have any first-hand information about this?