Well, the people involved in far-right Christian Zionism are not usually the kind who worry about cultural appropriation. That tends to be more a left-wing or liberal concern, and I suspect something like Texas Hava Nagila isn't really on the radar for most progressives.
Furthermore, assuming some of those Christians actually consider themselves Messianic Jews(as opposed to just being Christians who really like Jews) they might view Hava Nagila as their moral property anyway.
Not sure how many of the people in attendance would be Jewish in the typical understanding of the idea(ie. not gentiles who converted to Messianic Judaism). Though I think almost everyone would be a believer in the Messiahship of Jesus.
That's a flippant answer that adds nothing to the discussion.
My "How convenient" wasn't meant as a direct reply to you. Person B represents Mousethief and his argument. What I was saying was that Mousethief wasn't arguing what you said he was arguing.
That's a flippant answer that adds nothing to the discussion.
My "How convenient" wasn't meant as a direct reply to you. Person B represents Mousethief and his argument. What I was saying was that Mousethief wasn't arguing what you said he was arguing.
Stetson has correctly divined and represented what I was saying.
OK let me bravely attempt to talk about the OP again!
So obviously to a fair number of people past and present including @undead_rat the Image of Edessa (and other alleged-to-be-miraculous images of Jesus) is important; it means a lot to them.
What is the nature of this importance?
1. Is it that miraculous healings or other miraculous interventions are expected by believers venerating the image? (This is what seems to be expected in Acts, for example). E.g. "My chronically ill sister spent several days contemplating the image and she rapidly recovered"
2. Is it that the image is an aid to personal devotion? E,g. "When praying I find that the image reminds me of the reality of Our Lord's suffering"
3. Is it that the image helps faith - "this helps me to believe that Jesus really existed"?
4. And/or something else?
I feel that @undead_rat emphasises 3. whereas I would have most sympathy for 2. but scripturally speaking 1. seems to be most often mentioned...
In the opening paragraph of his OP, @undead_rat says the Edessa image showed what
Jesus' face actually looked like IRL, whereas all earlier paintings and icons had been produced by artists who had been free to use their imagination.
If the story of King Abgarus could be proved to be truly and verifiably historical, then I would certainly agree with undead_rat that an authentic photograph, so to speak, of Jesus would be a discovery of the utmost interest and importance. Even if the original picture was no longer extant, it would still be important to be able to state that certain known paintings were copies of that lost original. I think I have been scrupulously fair to undead_rat in summarising his views in these words.
The trouble is, of course, that the whole story is fiction, not history at all.
No, I don't agree at all! If you accept that God miraculously intervenes, why should he not do so even if a relic is of dubious provenance? Still less do I see why someone's devotional life should be invalidated just because they may be mistaken about exactly how and when their helpful icon came to be made?
No, I don't agree at all! If you accept that God miraculously intervenes, why should he not do so even if a relic is of dubious provenance? Still less do I see why someone's devotional life should be invalidated just because they may be mistaken about exactly how and when their helpful icon came to be made?
With whom are you disagreeing @TurquoiseTastic ? Some unfortunate cross-posting seems to have occurred!
I do appreciate that a person's devotional life is their own affair, between them and their God, and I would certainly not seek to disparage anything they might happen to find helpful.
No, I don't agree at all! If you accept that God miraculously intervenes, why should he not do so even if a relic is of dubious provenance? Still less do I see why someone's devotional life should be invalidated just because they may be mistaken about exactly how and when their helpful icon came to be made?
What if the reason it's helpful is precisely because they think it's real? What if they themselves think it would be invalidated if found to be inauthentic? Are we being condescending or patronizing if we tell them how they should feel about it? That they should be happy with their icon even if it's fake, that its fakery shouldn't matter to them, when it clearly does?
Possibly, or perhaps (and this is, alas, more likely) he's got fed up with the flippancy of Hell-bound Hereticks...
A Kentish non-Conformist preacher of the early 19th C, James Weller, once described his congregation as a *Poor, Perishing Company of Miserable Sinners*, into which category I feel I fit quite well.
Possibly, or perhaps (and this is, alas, more likely) he's got fed up with the flippancy of Hell-bound Hereticks...
A Kentish non-Conformist preacher of the early 19th C, James Weller, once described his congregation as a *Poor, Perishing Company of Miserable Sinners*, into which category I feel I fit quite well.
I don't think Unitarians are usually big on such concepts are they?
Possibly, or perhaps (and this is, alas, more likely) he's got fed up with the flippancy of Hell-bound Hereticks...
A Kentish non-Conformist preacher of the early 19th C, James Weller, once described his congregation as a *Poor, Perishing Company of Miserable Sinners*, into which category I feel I fit quite well.
I don't think Unitarians are usually big on such concepts are they?
Well, in my experience, UUs (which I think he said he is) aren’t usually that big on things like the Shroud of Turin, the Prophecy of the Popes or the Image of Edessa either. But there you go.
Comments
Well, the people involved in far-right Christian Zionism are not usually the kind who worry about cultural appropriation. That tends to be more a left-wing or liberal concern, and I suspect something like Texas Hava Nagila isn't really on the radar for most progressives.
Furthermore, assuming some of those Christians actually consider themselves Messianic Jews(as opposed to just being Christians who really like Jews) they might view Hava Nagila as their moral property anyway.
Not sure how many of the people in attendance would be Jewish in the typical understanding of the idea(ie. not gentiles who converted to Messianic Judaism). Though I think almost everyone would be a believer in the Messiahship of Jesus.
That's a flippant answer that adds nothing to the discussion.
My "How convenient" wasn't meant as a direct reply to you. Person B represents Mousethief and his argument. What I was saying was that Mousethief wasn't arguing what you said he was arguing.
Stetson has correctly divined and represented what I was saying.
So obviously to a fair number of people past and present including @undead_rat the Image of Edessa (and other alleged-to-be-miraculous images of Jesus) is important; it means a lot to them.
What is the nature of this importance?
1. Is it that miraculous healings or other miraculous interventions are expected by believers venerating the image? (This is what seems to be expected in Acts, for example). E.g. "My chronically ill sister spent several days contemplating the image and she rapidly recovered"
2. Is it that the image is an aid to personal devotion? E,g. "When praying I find that the image reminds me of the reality of Our Lord's suffering"
3. Is it that the image helps faith - "this helps me to believe that Jesus really existed"?
4. And/or something else?
I feel that @undead_rat emphasises 3. whereas I would have most sympathy for 2. but scripturally speaking 1. seems to be most often mentioned...
Which, of course, is impossible.
Especially since they are, conveniently, no longer available.
Jesus' face actually looked like IRL, whereas all earlier paintings and icons had been produced by artists who had been free to use their imagination.
If the story of King Abgarus could be proved to be truly and verifiably historical, then I would certainly agree with undead_rat that an authentic photograph, so to speak, of Jesus would be a discovery of the utmost interest and importance. Even if the original picture was no longer extant, it would still be important to be able to state that certain known paintings were copies of that lost original. I think I have been scrupulously fair to undead_rat in summarising his views in these words.
The trouble is, of course, that the whole story is fiction, not history at all.
With whom are you disagreeing @TurquoiseTastic ? Some unfortunate cross-posting seems to have occurred!
I do appreciate that a person's devotional life is their own affair, between them and their God, and I would certainly not seek to disparage anything they might happen to find helpful.
What if the reason it's helpful is precisely because they think it's real? What if they themselves think it would be invalidated if found to be inauthentic? Are we being condescending or patronizing if we tell them how they should feel about it? That they should be happy with their icon even if it's fake, that its fakery shouldn't matter to them, when it clearly does?
That would be terrible.
Possibly, or perhaps (and this is, alas, more likely) he's got fed up with the flippancy of Hell-bound Hereticks...
A Kentish non-Conformist preacher of the early 19th C, James Weller, once described his congregation as a *Poor, Perishing Company of Miserable Sinners*, into which category I feel I fit quite well.
I don't think Unitarians are usually big on such concepts are they?