gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (04/01/91)
A while back I saw a brief posting on another group from OFM about a book. The book is _Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? The Resurrection Debate_, by Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, edited by Terry L. Miethe. If you haven't read this book, I strongly urge you to do so. Presents a lot of information to ponder upon. While reading it, I came across something interesting. Habermas brought up the shroud of Turin as part of his discussion. I have not really kept up on the research into the shroud so I found the following a bit surprising. I share it here to see if others have further information on the research -- and the conclusions drawn by both researchers and others. BTW, Habermas co-authored a book with Kenneth Stevenson, who served as the editor and spokesperson for the scientists who investigated the shroud in 1978, about the shroud. Here is part of what Habermas says during the debate with Flew: The shroud is a piece of linen that bears the image of a crucified man who has all of the wounds associated with Jesus' death, including a pierced scalp, a serious beating, contusions on the knees and shoulders, four nail wounds in the wrists and feet, as well as a postmortem blood flow from a chest wound. The man is in a state of rigor motis, another evidence of death. The man has been identified as a Semite, and evidence from coins over the eyes, pollen, and numerous historical references connect this shroud with a likely first-century origin. But not only do the wounds on the cloth parallel those of Jesus, but they do so in more than a half-dozen areas that are unusual for a crucifixion. Several scientific researchers have noted the high probability that the two men are the same person, based largely on these agreements in rare and abnormal aspects. As even an agnostic scientific critic of the shroud asserts concerning these probabilities in 'The Skeptical Inquirer': "I agree... on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus." In other words, this agnostic researcher asserts that if the shroud is not a fake, then it is Jesus' burial cloth. But perhaps the strongest major conclusion emerging from the investigation is that the shroud is authentic. [Did you notice this -- Habermas, a Protestant and not one given to imaginings says that the shroud is authentic based upon the evidence!] As one official scientific report states: "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils." Equally intriguing, scientific discoveries concerning the shroud, such as its three-dimensionality, superficiality, and nondirectionality are virtually unexplainable in current scientific terms. Further, there is no bodily decomposition on the shroud, indicating the separation of the body from the cloth. Additionally, the scientific team's chief pathologist has testified that although the body existed, it was probably not unwrapped, as indicated by the condition of the blood stains. Kenneth Stevenson and I, as well as others, have argued that the evidence indicates the probable cause of the image on the cloth to be a light or heat scorch from a dead body. In fact, the shroud image appears to be a type of photographic negative, caused by heat or light, having the unique empirical and repeatable characteristics previously mentioned, all proceeding from a dead body and possibly even picturing the body leaving the cloth without being unwrapped. But more than an indescribable mystery, when combined with the probable identification of the shroud as Jesus' burial garment, the shroud becomes an additional set of arguments for Jesus' Resurrection. It should be noted that scientific data can change, and nothing in the Christian faith depends on the shroud (unlike the other three sets of arguments [which I didn't present in this email]). Yet the evidence at present provides some empirically repeatable evidence for the Resurrection. Comments? Thoughts? I'd even welcome OFM breaking the rules a bit and entering into the discussion on this one. En Agape, Gene [As I recall, since publication of the book fairly convincing evidence became available that the shroud was not authentic. But I don't recall any details. Perhaps someone else will remember it. I was also a bit surprised that Habermas used near death experiences as evidence for survival of the soul. While I find N.D.E.'s interesting, I'm dubious of the evidential value of visions experienced when the brain is suffering from lack of oxygen. One can easily imagine alternative explanations. Since my comments in talk.religion.misc I tracked down his reference to a supposed non-Christian corroboration of Matthew's account. A Roman historian Thallus, quoted by Julius Africanus, is said to have written a work around 52 AD that was a history of events in the Eastern Roman empire. In it he apparently referred to a darkness that Julius Africanus believed was the darkness at the crucifixion. The problem is that we don't have the actual text of Thallus. We have only Julius Africanus' response to it. He says that Thallus ascribed the darkness to an eclipse, but points out that this is impossible at Passover. (He says that the moon is in the wrong position to have an eclipse. I don't recall the details.) It's a tantalizing bit of information, but to make a fair assessement we'd need a bit more of what Thallus said. --clh]
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (04/02/91)
In article <Apr.1.04.03.51.1991.8105@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
[ Material about the Shroud of Turin deleted for space ]
After a number of years of hesitation, the Vatican allowed three small
samples to be cut from the edge of the shroud for carbon-14 testing.
All three tests indicated that--to within approximately 100 years--the
shroud dated from the early 14th century, which coincides very well with
its appearance in history.
A number of theories (most of them far-fetched in my opinion) have been
advanced to overcome this result. My favorite theory is that the shroud
is actually a "relic" sold to a crusader at the time of the sack of
Constantinople. (This would require stretching the error estimates on
the C-14 dating a bit, but not unreasonably.) No one, to my knowledge, has
reconciled the C-14 dating with the other evidence compiled during the
earlier examinations. Is that earlier evidence now to be seen as
wishful thinking, or is there more going on here?
Yours in Christ,
David Cruz-Uribe, SFOwales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) (04/02/91)
Replying to Gene Gross's article about the Shroud of Turin:
There is quite a bit of literature on the Shroud of Turin. In 1978, a
team of scientists spent about a week doing photographic, microscopic,
and other non-invasive tests on the Shroud. Much of their findings were
subsequently published in various scientific journals.
Gary Habermas, together with Kenneth Stevenson (a member of the research
group responsible for the 1978 scientific studies), authored a book on
the Shroud some years ago entitled _Verdict on the Shroud_. They took
a very strong pro-authenticity stand -- which troubled many of the other
members of the research group who had been trying to keep a more objec-
tive profile.
In 1988, samples of the Shroud were subjected to carbon-14 dating at
three laboratories. (The original proposal had called for seven labs
and at least two different C-14 measurement techniques -- but it had to
be cut back because officials of the Roman Catholic Church were unwill-
ing to have more than a barely minimal amount of material cut from the
Shroud. Remember that C-14 dating involves the incineration of a sample
of the object you want to date.)
The results of the C-14 testing, announced in October 1988, pointed to a
14th-century date for the fabric of the Shroud. (The Shroud's history
can be traced with absolute certainty only back to the 1350's.) Such a
date, of course, would conclusively rule out any possibility of the
relic having been the burial cloth of Christ.
However, apparently some researchers are not completely satisfied with
the 1988 C-14 tests.
(a) As I already mentioned, much of the redundancy in the original
testing protocol was cut back due to problems in getting enough
cloth to sacrifice for the measurements.
(b) Questions have been raised concerning the reliability of the partic-
ular technique employed in the tests (all three labs, I understand,
used the same method).
(c) The samples of cloth used in the tests came from a part of the
Shroud that may very likely have been affected by (though not actu-
ally charred in) a church fire which nearly destroyed the Shroud in
1532.
(d) The testing protocol was not "blind" (i.e., all the researchers knew
which sample had come from the Shroud, and which was the control).
(e) There was reportedly a secret attempt to carbon-date a thread from
the Shroud in 1982 -- in which the two ends of the thread were given
dates 1200 years apart. Aside from pointing out the risks inherent
in C-14 dating in general, this result (if true) suggests that the
Shroud may not be in suitable condition for an accurate C-14 test.
Hence, some students of the Shroud (including Stevenson) continue to
believe -- on the basis of the earlier research -- that there is still a
strong case for authenticity of the relic. Habermas, according to the
new book which he co-authored with Stevenson (_The Shroud and the Con-
troversy_), is somewhat more skeptical now than before. Both men, how-
ever, agree that the 1988 dating attempt needs to be done over.
Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/03/91)
I read one of the books on the shroud published by a member of the STURP team, and have seen various articles since then, covering things like the coin image on the eye. The C14 dating seems to me to raise as many questions as it answers. The "forger" was *very* thorough (read the STURP findings if you want to see what I mean). The details involved do not seem to jive well with the date given for the shroud. So I remain somewhat puzzled over the matter at present, awaiting further explanation of the findings. To change the topic, are there any Catholics here who know of any scientific study of the relics of St. Januarius, patron saint of Naples?
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (04/04/91)
In article <Apr.2.04.06.59.1991.20223@athos.rutgers.edu>, wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > Replying to Gene Gross's article about the Shroud of Turin: > > . . . . > > The results of the C-14 testing, announced in October 1988, pointed to a > 14th-century date for the fabric of the Shroud. (The Shroud's history > can be traced with absolute certainty only back to the 1350's.) Such a > date, of course, would conclusively rule out any possibility of the > relic having been the burial cloth of Christ. I personally would not put a whole lot of credence on a C-14 dating analysis. There are too many examples, such as recent Hawaiian lava dated to be millions of years of, to convince me that C-14 and other dating schemes can really be trusted. I would not throw out the shroud on the basis of C-14 dating. One thing that does give credibility to the team that investigated the shroud is their make up of for example agnostics, at least one Jew, a JW, etc. I wish I had the list at my finger tips. While I find the shroud valuable in that it gives us a lot of insight into how Jesus probably died, I would not dream of going to worship such a relic. And so for that reason I hope there is always some question about its authenticity. And yet what I have read about it sounds very convincing to me. Dave (David E. Buxton)
bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) (04/05/91)
[Rich Wales tells us that tests on the Shroud using C14 dating showed it to be 14th Cent. David Buxton responded #I personally would not put a whole lot of credence on a C-14 dating #analysis. There are too many examples, such as recent Hawaiian lava #dated to be millions of years of, to convince me that C-14 and other #dating schemes can really be trusted. --clh] Oh, dear. The example you cite was a deliberate experiment conducted by geologists to demonstrate what they expected on theoretical grounds, namely that a particular type of pillow basalt cannot be dated reliably by the K-Ar method. The reasons for this unreliablility have nothing whatsoever to do with C-14 dating, and do not in any way cast doubt on the reliablility of C-14 dating. They don't even cast doubt on the reliability of K-Ar dating when it is applied to suitable types of rocks. The fact that both methods utilize the decay of radioactive isotopes is irrelevant. This example is frequently used by unscrupulous Creationists to confuse the unwary and the naive. Beware. Bill Jefferys -- If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file --Robert Firth
mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) (04/08/91)
The following is a brief look at the shroud of Turin that I developed several
years ago. It has not been updated with the results of the latest scientific
studies, but it is still just as valid. I was written in reaction to
some "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" Christians attempts to defend its
authenticity. Some of this material was based on the notes of Paul Fedena,
pastor of the Fairless Hills Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
It is not my intention to be offensive in any way to any one with this
study; I trust that those who have formed opinions about it based on what
they would like to believe will reexamine those beliefs as a result of this.
Tim McGuire
mcguire@cs.tamu.edu
--------------------
The Shroud of Turin and the Scriptures
1. The "shroud" is one piece, whereas the "graveclothes" consisted of at
least two pieces. There was also a "napkin...about His head." If this
cloth was wrapped "about His head," how could an imprint of His features
be transferred to the shroud?
2. The "shroud" shows a man with long flowing hair. Question: How did His
hair come in contact with the "shroud" if it was simply laid over the
body? (According to the proponents, "only where the body actually touched
the cloth was an imprint made." [ABC 20/20, 4/16/81]) Comment: The
tradition of Christ having longer than normal hair seems to be of medieval
origin, based on the mistaken notion that He was a Nazarite (like Samson
or John the Baptist.) Christ is said to be a Nazarene -- one from
Nazareth -- instead, and in fact would have violated any Nazarite vow many
times by His actions. (Touching the dead, partaking of the fruit of the
vine, etc.)
3. The "shroud" shows a man laid on top of it with the remainder simply laid
on top of Him, in sandwich fashion. The Bible clearly states that the
disciples "wrapped Him" and "wound Him" in linen clothes (plural), not in
a "shroud" or "cloth" (singular). He was simply not laid on or in a one
piece cloth. (Look up Mk. 15:46, Mt. 17:59, Lk 23:53, Jn. 19:40)
Conclusion:
Whatever "the Shroud of Turin" is, it is not the burial clothes of our
Lord Jesus Christ. If we rely on the Biblical evidence, instead of on
traditon and superstition, we can reach no other conclusion.
Application:
If we were to uncover the graveclothes of Christ, or some other "relic"
what good would it do? Would it strengthen our faith? We have the
Scriptures! "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life
through His name." (John 20:31)
-------ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/09/91)
In article <Apr.7.22.11.36.1991.28806@athos.rutgers.edu>, mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) wrote > ... a brief look at the shroud of Turin ... He brought up some good points. However, if it > ...was written in reaction to > some "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" Christians attempts to defend its > authenticity there is another point which he didn't mention which ought to appeal to such people. One of the bigger disputes in church history in Western Europe was that between the iconoclasts (the people who wanted to smash "idols") and the iconodules (the people who saw nothing wrong with being respectful to and worshiping _through_ "images"). This clash preceded the Reformation by a century or so, and was one of the factors behind it. Now "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" are heirs to the iconoclasts. They would be shocked (at least, I hope they would) to see a crucifix displayed in one of their churches with a statue of Jesus on it. How on earth can people who think they are taking the 3rd commandment seriously imagine that God himself would make something extraneous that could tempt people to pay it undue reverence? (I call the Shroud "extraneous" to distinguish it from things like the Sun and the city of Jerusalem.) The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not have this distrust of images, so Catholics could believe in the Shroud without strain, but "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" should surely be _extremely_ sceptical of _every_ "miraculous image". If I may adapt a saying from the iconoclasts: "if you want to see an image of Christ, look at your neighbour". -- It is indeed manifest that dead men are formed from living ones; but it does not follow from that, that living men are formed from dead ones. -- Tertullian, on reincarnation.
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.9.04.05.19.1991.5934@athos.rutgers.edu>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > such people. One of the bigger disputes in church history in Western > Europe was that between the iconoclasts (the people who wanted to smash > "idols") and the iconodules (the people who saw nothing wrong with being > respectful to and worshiping _through_ "images"). This clash preceded > the Reformation by a century or so, and was one of the factors behind it. ????? The iconoclasm dispute was in 8th century Byzantium. The emperor Leo the Isaurian, having successfully withstood siege of Constantinopolis by the Arabs, launched a campaign for suppressing images. It is at least a fairly reasonable speculation that the iconoclastic movement may have owed some of its impetus to an emulation of the strict prohibition of images in Islam. In any case, the Byzantine movement, like Protestant suspicions of Catholic statuary -- and as a sort of distant cousin to the Muslim feeling -- took the "no graven images" bit very seriously -- and with a very exaggerated application. To that extent there is some common ground between the earlier Eastern and the later Western reactions to highly visually-oriented worship. After a generation or so, the reaction against this kind of "puritanism" gathered enough weight to condemn iconoclasm at a general council (under the emperess Irene). There was a more minor swing of the pendulum in the 9th century, through one more cycle of imperially approved and thereafter disapproved iconoclasm, after which the Eastern church stabilized on its now-millenium-old usage of icons (which is, incidentally, a highly special topic, and shouldn't generally be dealt with by ignorant Westerners like me. My remarks are entirely directed at the civil history, and church-state relations of the Byzantines.) I am not aware of any similar kind of thing in the West. The reformers did object to images, particulary statuary, of Mary and the saints, as being dangerously verging on idolatry. This was NOT a movement against images in general -- though it is the sort of thing behind mutilation of cathedrals in France and England in religious warfare. -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!attunix!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.9.04.05.19.1991.5934@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
there is another point which he didn't mention which ought to appeal to
such people. One of the bigger disputes in church history in Western
Europe was that between the iconoclasts (the people who wanted to smash
"idols") and the iconodules (the people who saw nothing wrong with being
respectful to and worshiping _through_ "images"). This clash preceded
the Reformation by a century or so, and was one of the factors behind it.
For the curious, the Iconoclast heresy was terminated by the 2nd council
of Nicaea in the year 787. Here is an excerpt from the acta:
... We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely
inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic
Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells
in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the
honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the
ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material,
must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred
vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and
on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and
Saviour, and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the
honorable angels, and, at the same time, of saints and holy men.
For, how much more frequently through the imaginal formation they are
seen, so much more quickly are those who contemplate these, raised to
the memory and desire of the originals of these, to kiss and to render
honorable adoration to them, not however, to grant true *latria*
according to our faith, which is proper to divine nature alone; but just
as to the figure of the revered and life-giving Cross and to the holy
gospels, and to the other sacred monuments, let an oblation of incense
and lights be made to give honor to these as was the pious custom with
the ancients. "For the honor of hte image passes to the original" [St.
Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18:45] and he who shows reverence to the image,
shows reverence to the substance of Him depicted in it,
I think this is the last council recognized as ecumenical by the
Catholics and Orthodox alike.davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.9.04.05.19.1991.5934@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Now "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" are heirs to the iconoclasts. >They would be shocked (at least, I hope they would) to see a crucifix >displayed in one of their churches with a statue of Jesus on it. Yes, icon worship is not such a hot thing to be doing...But, the emotions manifested through icons can and do have a way of reaching the soul in kind of the same way that music does. If a person were to pay attention to just how the soul is being touched, and allowed themselves to ride that emotion, like they would music, they just might find that they were experiencing a place and height of worship of God that they had not known nor experienced before. Icons are expressions, through art, of another persons attempt to express the experience of glory that they are experiencing as they basked within the presence, and the Glory of God. It's a spiritual awakening tool to help bring one to a much higher degree of awareness of God by awakening memories hidden within the soul. Like Richard, I also would be shocked so see icon's within the churches of fundamentalists and evangelist. The lack of spiritual art within these churches I feel points to an example of how the literal focus of these traditions have been a limiting factor in the believer's access to tools and teachings that have a way of awakening one to the more deeper spiritual experiences of knowing and worshipping God through Christ. As one of the off shoots of the Reformation, I feel that the centuries of accumulated knowledge on how to use the spiritual tools and teachings that work to help to awaken one to an ever more deeper spiritual Union with God were left behind. One of the results of this spiritual limitation is that, IMHO, many, who have a huge hunger for a more deeper and meaningful spiritual growth than the fundamentalists and evangelist are able to provide are often going else where to satisfy their spiritual needs. And that else where for the youth is often towards the Newage spirituality. For seeing the Divine within ALL peoples... David Hatcher [Just as I have to ask Protestants to have respect for what Charles Williams call "the way of affirmation of images", I'd like to say that I find "the way of rejection of images" to be valuable as well. I guess it's an emphasis on ear rather than eye: the church with nothing in it that might distract from the proclamation of the Word, that allows no images (except on Sunday School walls, for some odd reason) so that the worshipper talks directly with God in prayer. I udnerstand that this is a vision that is repellent to those accustomed to visual cues, but for those raised in the tradition, the simple Colonial church, with no ornamentation or pictures, evokes God's presence. --clh]
llo@nuchat.sccsi.com (Larry Overacker) (04/17/91)
In article <Apr.14.00.36.10.1991.19207@athos.rutgers.edu> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David L Hatcher) writes: >In article <Apr.9.04.05.19.1991.5934@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>Now "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" are heirs to the iconoclasts. >>They would be shocked (at least, I hope they would) to see a crucifix >>displayed in one of their churches with a statue of Jesus on it. > > > Yes, icon worship is not such a hot thing to be doing...But, the The Orthodox view is that icons are windows on the infinite. Through meditation on the subject of the icon, we become closer to God. It is one of many tools. > >[Just as I have to ask Protestants to have respect for what Charles >Williams call "the way of affirmation of images", I'd like to say that >I find "the way of rejection of images" to be valuable as well. I >guess it's an emphasis on ear rather than eye: the church with nothing >in it that might distract from the proclamation of the Word, that >allows no images (except on Sunday School walls, for some odd reason) >so that the worshipper talks directly with God in prayer. I >udnerstand that this is a vision that is repellent to those accustomed >to visual cues, but for those raised in the tradition, the simple >Colonial church, with no ornamentation or pictures, evokes God's >presence. --clh] I have a great deal of respect for those people who, in good conscience, choose to avoid images. My view is that worship is to be a total human experience in which the whole of our being is involved. As such, all our senses are involved. We see our fellows and the sacred images of the Church. We hear the music, liturgy and souunds of voices raised in praise to God. We taste through the Eucharist of the incredible mercy, power and love of God. We touch one another and raise our hands in praise to God. We smell the sweet incense that reminds us of the sweetness of the sacrifice God made for us. This is valuable to me. I understand others may feel differently. I get really annoyed with people who contend that this practice isn't Christian. It is and it works for me and for millions over the last 2000 years. Other paths to Jesus work for other people. We should not force specific roads to Jesus on anyone. Thomas needed to touch Jesus. Others did not. The other were not better or worse believers because the did not touch Jesus. -- ============================================================================ Larry Overacker Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it. bertolt brecht
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/18/91)
OFM writes... >[Just as I have to ask Protestants to have respect for what Charles >Williams call "the way of affirmation of images", I'd like to say that >I find "the way of rejection of images" to be valuable as well. I >guess it's an emphasis on ear rather than eye: the church with nothing >in it that might distract from the proclamation of the Word, that >allows no images (except on Sunday School walls, for some odd reason) >so that the worshipper talks directly with God in prayer. I >udnerstand that this is a vision that is repellent to those accustomed >to visual cues, but for those raised in the tradition, the simple >Colonial church, with no ornamentation or pictures, evokes God's >presence. --clh] (I love your Sunday School observation!) Back many years ago I discussed icons/statues etc. with a Roman Catholic friend. He suggested that I view them as "visual aids" to help worshipers visualize and focus on that which could not be seen. I can accept that. Icons and the like still are not right for me, but if contemplating a statue helps you to come into union with God I won't take your statue away. Similarly, I suspect this is why we have paintings on the walls of the Sunday School. Children need something to grab hold of and build concepts around. Waving your hands and saying God is everywhere is confusing for most adults, let alone your typical 5 year old. Unfortunately, this leaves a lot of people with a distinct feeling that God is an old man with flowing white hair, and a stern expression sitting on a cloud. ;-) It's been my experience that as the grades progress, the number of "visual aids" on the walls decreases. Is your experience similar? My pastor this last Sunday brought one of her favorite paintings for use in the sermon. It shows Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus with two disciples. As she pointed out, the painting isn't historically accurate, it shows Jesus and the disciples walking down a shady lane in a forest of maple trees. The key, is that the painting communicates to an audiance who can identify with a shady forest lane. It communicates the peace and calm the disciples may have felt walking with Jesus. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (04/18/91)
In article <Apr.17.02.50.24.1991.8633@athos.rutgers.edu> llo@nuchat.sccsi.com (Larry Overacker) writes:
I understand others may feel differently. I get really annoyed
with people who contend that this practice isn't Christian. It is
and it works for me and for millions over the last 2000 years.
Other paths to Jesus work for other people. We should not force
specific roads to Jesus on anyone. Thomas needed to touch Jesus.
Others did not. The other were not better or worse believers
because the did not touch Jesus.
Didn't Jesus himself say that it was better for those who did not
touch? Didn't he praise the faith of those who did not need to touch,
while allowing Thomas to? It seems to me that Thomas was not *wrong*,
but there is a clear division made between his faith and that of the
other ten. Are we not to strive for the faith of those other
apostles?
-mibdavidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.18.03.28.18.1991.7392@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >Didn't Jesus himself say that it was better for those who did not >touch? Didn't he praise the faith of those who did not need to touch, >while allowing Thomas to? This reminde me of a quote from Mother Teresa of Calcutta as she relates a story about one of her sisters that I read in William Johnston's clasic on Christian mysticism, "The Inner Eye of Love". "During the mass," I said, "you saw that the priest touched the body of Christ with great tenderness. When you touch the poor today, you too will be touching the body of Christ. Give them that same love and tenderness." When they returned several hours later, the new sister came up to me, her face shining with joy. "I have neen touching the body of Christ for three hours," she said. I asked her what she had done. "Just as we arived, the sister brought in a man covered with maggots. He had been picked up from a drain. I have been taking care of him, I have been touching Christ. I knew it was him," she said. For seeing the Divine within ALL peoples... David Hatcher
cms@dragon (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.18.03.23.32.1991.7320@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > Back many years ago I discussed icons/statues etc. with a Roman Catholic > friend. He suggested that I view them as "visual aids" to help > worshipers visualize and focus on that which could not be seen. I can > accept that. Icons and the like still are not right for me, but if > contemplating a statue helps you to come into union with God I won't > take your statue away. Thank you! I have a little statue of Mary sitting in my room, which helps me to focus my attention on the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, and the meaning of her Immaculate Conception which is the whole life, death, and resurrection of her Son. What Chuck said about "eye and ear" is essentially correct; the Bible helps us to touch the Word of God, statues and pictures help us to visualize the Word of God. To take away icons and statues would be akin to taking away the Bible. Indeed, I've been in few Protestant churches or Protestant homes without _some_ visual images. For example, I've seen few Protestant churches without a cross on top of the church or on a door. The cross is a visual image; are there any Protestant churches that deny even a cross? The only difference, as I see it, is that Catholic images are much more elaborate, and Protestant images more sparse or abstract. A Church, whether elaborately ornate, or bare, is still a physical building wherein one goes to worship God. I would submit that the church itself is a visible image that most people, Protestant or Catholic, would be hardpressed to give up. I took a course in Humanities through the Arts in which one of my topics of study was church architecture. You should notice the similarities and differences between Protestant and Catholic architecture (inside and out). It's fascinating. The point is that Protestants need visual images to connect to God, too; they're images are more subtle -- you must look for them harder. > Similarly, I suspect this is why we have paintings on the walls of the > Sunday School. Children need something to grab hold of and build > concepts around. Waving your hands and saying God is everywhere is > confusing for most adults, let alone your typical 5 year old. > Unfortunately, this leaves a lot of people with a distinct feeling that > God is an old man with flowing white hair, and a stern expression > sitting on a cloud. ;-) ....keeping a tally book of all the pluses and minuses that go on in this world such that everything works out to some arbitrary point of zero that we call "fair." :-) > It's been my experience that as the grades progress, the number of > "visual aids" on the walls decreases. Is your experience similar? As a Catholic, I would say that our images grew more sophisticated. I also took a course at my Episcopal Church called the Bethel Bible Study Series in which visual images played a primary role in memorizing many, many concepts (abstract as well as concrete). For this reason, I would say that Catholics maintain a stronger oral tradition than Protestants (no play on words intended). The Catholics have always maintained a strong oral tradition primarily because so many Christians were illiterate. The Protestant Revolution occurred at just the right time -- literacy was on the move. At any rate, visual images help an illiterate culture memorize many key concepts of the Christian faith. When literacy rose, and Protestants stressed internal literacy for the purpose of Scripture reading, it seemed logical that Protestants would feel less need for visually-oriented memorization. I didn't read this anywhere, this is my guess. It went hand-in-hand with the theology of certain reformers. It wouldn't have succeeded without the increase in the literacy rate. At the same time, however, I would say that the increase in the literacy rate increased the complexity of certain devotions; many devotions began using Scriptural readings in conjunction with the devotion, for example, the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, etc., along with the images. Reading Scripture in conjunction with an image, as my Bethel course taught me, causes one to call to mind the picture when hearing the Scripture, as well as as calling to mind the Scripture upon seeing the picture. For example, whenever I read the resurrection passages in the NT, certain favorite pictures always pop into my mind; similarly, whenever I see a certain picture, I can often quote the Scripture passage it represents. > My pastor this last Sunday brought one of her favorite paintings for use > in the sermon. It shows Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus with two > disciples. As she pointed out, the painting isn't historically > accurate, it shows Jesus and the disciples walking down a shady lane in > a forest of maple trees. The key, is that the painting communicates to > an audiance who can identify with a shady forest lane. It communicates > the peace and calm the disciples may have felt walking with Jesus. I have this painting hanging in my living room. I like it because it appears to be a man and a woman walking next to Jesus carefully listening to his teachings. If we're talking about the same painting. If it's Emaus, I could be wrong about one of them being a woman. However, I put it on my wall precisely because the picture contained a woman as well as a man listening carefully to Christ; I had in mind Mary who "took the better portion." Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms "A picture is worth a thousand words." [Certainly the Reformation occured around the time when printing became widespread, and reading the Bible was important. But the Reformers tended to stress the Word as preached. The pulpit was used critically as a tool for both education and propagandizing. I agree that Protestants have tended to stress the Word, and Catholics visual images, but I think the Word as used by Protestants should be thought of as heard at least as much as read. --clh
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.23.02.58.58.1991.2148@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon writes: >... Indeed, I've been in few Protestant churches or Protestant >homes without _some_ visual images. For example, I've seen few >Protestant churches without a cross on top of the church or on a door. >The cross is a visual image; are there any Protestant churches that >deny even a cross? The only difference, as I see it, is that Catholic >images are much more elaborate, and Protestant images more sparse or >abstract. A Church, whether elaborately ornate, or bare, is still a >physical building wherein one goes to worship God. I would submit >that the church itself is a visible image that most people, Protestant >or Catholic, would be hardpressed to give up. I took a course in >Humanities through the Arts in which one of my topics of study was >church architecture. You should notice the similarities and >differences between Protestant and Catholic architecture (inside and >out). It's fascinating. The point is that Protestants need visual >images to connect to God, too; they're images are more subtle -- you >must look for them harder. Well, you don't have to look for them all that hard really. The cross tends to be hung in prominence. Back 20 years or so ago we had Salman's (sp?) "Head of Christ" hanging above the pulpit. (Now it's moved downstairs.) Banners often decorate the walls. As you say, the symbols are more subtle. Indeed, the traditional steeple which "points the way to God" is a symbol. As I have pointed out before, we seem to define ourselves now, not by what we have in common but what our differences are, and we over-emphasize them. For instance, in theory, we don't believe in trans-substantiation, and yet the elements are treated with a great deal of reverance. Noone would dream of throwing out the leftover bread or grape juice. The elements are sanctified. In theory, we don't believe in "Holy Water". (One of my pastors as part of the ritual used to pour water into the baptismal font from a pitcher, as if to emphasize that the water didn't mysteriously appear in the font.) And yet, the water in the font isn't poured down the drain. I picked up the habit of taking it outside and pouring it on the lawn from one of our oldest members. (That same pastor was extremely wary of symbols. He used to change the order of worship around so people wouldn't think of it as sacred. And yet, he knew the worth of them. While he was with us, we starte the tradtion of a "Chrismon Tree". This is a "Christmas Tree" where are the decorations are simple symbols of Christianity, (a cross, a fish, an anchor cross, a manger, an alpha/omega etc.) during advent, he'd explain the meanings of the different symbols to the children. The idea is not that a symbol is bad. The idea is to avoid worshipping the symbol, rather than what it symbolizes.) >> My pastor this last Sunday brought one of her favorite paintings for use >> in the sermon. It shows Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus with two >> disciples. As she pointed out, the painting isn't historically >> accurate, it shows Jesus and the disciples walking down a shady lane in >> a forest of maple trees. The key, is that the painting communicates to >> an audiance who can identify with a shady forest lane. It communicates >> the peace and calm the disciples may have felt walking with Jesus. > I have this painting hanging in my living room. I like it because it >appears to be a man and a woman walking next to Jesus carefully >listening to his teachings. If we're talking about the same painting. >If it's Emaus, I could be wrong about one of them being a woman. >However, I put it on my wall precisely because the picture contained a >woman as well as a man listening carefully to Christ; I had in mind >Mary who "took the better portion." Indeed, the very one. She also brought it in three years ago, (there's that old lectionary again! ;-) ), at that time, she pointed out that one of the figures appears to be a woman. She also pointed out that there is nothing in Luke to contradict this. The two are not of the eleven, (they go back and tell the eleven). Only one of them is explicitly identified, (Cleopas). There is no mention of who the other one is at all, (although both supposedly spoke). The two were staying together at Emmaus, and invited Jesus to stay with them. (Can't you see this being a happily married couple of disciples?) Nancy pointed out that if they were a couple, there would be no need to identify the second disciple, (It would be Cleopas and the wife of Cleopas), and certainly there is a fine tradition of Biblical authors not explicitly mentioning (or counting*) women. So, while there is no requirement that the second disciple must have been a woman, similarly there is no requirement that (she) wasn't. (Go back and read the passage, see if it doesn't read well as a married couple.) * For example, when Jesus fed the 5000, they were 5000 *men*, (not counting the women and children) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.21.34.40.1991.7507@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
For instance, in theory, we don't believe in trans-substantiation, and
yet the elements are treated with a great deal of reverance. Noone
would dream of throwing out the leftover bread or grape juice. The
elements are sanctified.
That's interesting. In the churches I've been involved in (all
Presbyterian), the elements are not treated with any particular
reverence outside the service.
In theory, we don't believe in "Holy Water". (One of my pastors as part
of the ritual used to pour water into the baptismal font from a pitcher,
as if to emphasize that the water didn't mysteriously appear in the
font.) And yet, the water in the font isn't poured down the drain. I
picked up the habit of taking it outside and pouring it on the lawn from
one of our oldest members.
Hmmm....Our water usually came from the water fountain downstairs. I
don't know what the usual disposal method was, but I suspect a drain
as most likely.
The Reformed understanding is that the elements are nothing more than
themselves, but in the act of the sacrament, they take on a spiritual
meaning. But, since the elements remain simply bread, water, and the
fruit of the vine, they have no special meaning apart from the
sacramental action. The PCUSA Book of Order says that the elements of
the Lord's Supper who be "removed from the Table and used or disposed
of in a manner which is approved by the session, and which is
consistent with the Reformed understanding of the Sacrament and the
principles of good stewardship." There isn't any such statement
referring to the water of baptism. This sentence means, basically,
that they excess shouldn't be automatically tossed out, nor kept as a
special matter deserving of reverence, but simply that excess material
should be dealt with as if it were food in some other context.
-mibtblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.30.27.1991.20989@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <Apr.24.21.34.40.1991.7507@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: (Well, actually I gave examples of practice of treating communion elements with reverence, and baptismal water as well... Michael said that he encountered different practices.) >The Reformed understanding is that the elements are nothing more than >themselves, but in the act of the sacrament, they take on a spiritual >meaning. But, since the elements remain simply bread, water, and the >fruit of the vine, they have no special meaning apart from the >sacramental action. The PCUSA Book of Order says that the elements of >the Lord's Supper who be "removed from the Table and used or disposed >of in a manner which is approved by the session, and which is >consistent with the Reformed understanding of the Sacrament and the >principles of good stewardship." There isn't any such statement >referring to the water of baptism. This sentence means, basically, >that they excess shouldn't be automatically tossed out, nor kept as a >special matter deserving of reverence, but simply that excess material >should be dealt with as if it were food in some other context. What I was describing was not the official church doctrine, but rather the belief of the people in the pews. Perhaps you have encountered different practices. One of my friends while attending seminary was chapel steward. The man in charge of the chapel believed in serving wine for communion, my friend (raised a good Methodist) does not drink alcoholic beverages. Following communion, she was disposing of the wine by pouring it down the drain, at which point she was confronted by the man in charge. "It is to be *consumed*!" he said. This left her with quite a quandry, what resulted was that a number of her friends (not so incumbered with beliefs against alcohol) would help her dispose of the elements on these occasions. Once at annual conference we were addressed by a Roman Catholic bishop (of an overlapping diocese), he spoke of the misunderstandings between Roman Catholics and Protestants. (He believed that much of the difficulty was caused by a class struggle, I.E. the poor Irish and Italian immigrants were Roman Catholic, the rich English shopkeepers were Protestant.) In any case, one of his statements has stuck with me. "It pretty much takes a theologian to be a heretic." His point was that the beliefs of the people in the pews really aren't all that different on the essential matters. And it was only when you got onto side issues that the differences begin to spring up. Much of our strife is based upon simple ignorance and bigotry. Many Roman Catholics are quite surprised to find that we repeat the Apostles' Creed. (And we even say we believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.) (I've heard some of the most amazing things.) From protestants I've heard all sorts of things. Catholics don't have Bible Studies. Catholics don't have prayer meetings. Catholics don't sing. (You've heard all of them and more I'm sure.) Both groups seem quite surprised at how similar the Protestant rituals for Holy Communion and the Roman Catholic "Mass" are. I've run into a lot of misunderstandings on both sides of the fence, and the people I know are more alike than different. Many Protestants don't agree with the Pope, most of the Roman Catholics I know don't agree with the Pope on a number of points either. (Indeed I have more respect for the Pope than a number of my Roman Catholic friends.) There's so much that we share, That it's time we're aware, It's a small small world. ;-) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) (05/23/91)
[In response to a discussion some time back on icons and other "visual aids" --clh] Actually Icons are spoken of in the Bible. For example, Veronica's cloth, when she wiped the brow of Jesus, was left with an image of Jesus. There are other references to Icons in there as well. Michael Corbin -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG [I'd like to see a citation on Veronica's cloth. I'm at Rutgers, so I don't have my computer Bible accessible, but this doesn't sound like anything I remember in the Bible... --clh]