andrewcriddle

early christian art may be of interest.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

Thanks! I notice however, that there is nothing there earlier than the 4th century, and that at least one of the pieces does depict the cross (as well as other themes from the passion).

Clivedurdle

http://www.britishmuseumshoponline.org/invt/cmc50536

Clivedurdle

It is at this exhibition that I saw a huge blown up version of Gaudi's Christ of St John.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Image-Christ...ef=pd_sim_b_12

spamandham

From the Amazon synopsis, it seems this also is 4th century+:

Rowena Loverance draws extensively on the vast international collections of the British Museum, with its remarkable examples of Christian art in the fourth-century Roman empire, the meeting of Eastern and Western art during the Crusades, Christian missionary art and its reception in sixteenth-century Africa, India, and Japan, and twentieth-century Christian popular art from Latin America and Oceania.

IamJoseph

Check history. The Catholic church murdered more humans than all the rest of the world's murders combined. The massacres of medevial Europe, far greater than Rome, Babylon and the Egyptians, stemmed only when a refuge in America was discovered and Napoleon dislodged the church rule. The Catholic church returned, proclaiming genocide and causing the Holocaust in the last century:

'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope not so Pius.

youngalexander

Here are a the major refs from a previous post - (refs at bottom)

Also topical is a little research I did some time back from Jensen Understanding Early Christian Art (pg#, par) & [pg, notes]

Q5
(133) Theories regarding the absence of crucifixion images
(133, 1) 1. EC too squeamish to contemplate such images [203, 5, 6]
(133, 2) or artists too reluctant to portray [203, 5, 9]
(134, 2) 2. barbaric punishment reserved for criminals [203, 5, 10/11], [204, 5, 12]
(134, 3) 2ndC apologists on crucifixion [204, 5, 13/14]
(134, 5) 3a. gnostic or docetic Christology (135, 2). 3b. “popular” adoptionist Christology
(135, 3) Snyder’s A-P adoptionist theory
(135, 5) incompatibility b/w art & theology & (136, 6)
(136, 1) apologists speak of cross [205, 5, 17-20]; epistles death of Christ [205, 5, 21]
(137, 1) inadequacy of prior explanations – it’s more subtle; anyone for MJ?

bacht

Well, for one thing there were a lot more people alive in recent times than in pre-modern. Secondly the 20th C totalitarians had modern technology available for mass detention and execution. And in the case of the Roman Catholic church the calculation should include the social services and education they provided before the rise of modern states. I'm guessing the Muslim conquests of the 7th - 10th C yielded a substantial casualty roll, and there were the Asian hordes over the years (Goths, Huns, Mongols, Turks et al)

Accusing the RCC of "causing the Holocaust" is a bit silly, there were other forces at work in 19th and early 20th C Europe. Germany was split between Catholics and Protestants anyway, and the papacy had only a shadow of its former status.

Between the 12th and 18th C Jews were expelled from most of Western Europe and migrated east. You can't just blame the church for this, anti-semitism was common. Considering that Jews were prohibited from owning real estate for centuries it's not difficult to understand why they would desire a piece of property they could work themselves (Israel).

And you forgot to mention John Paul's visit to the Wailing Wall
http://www.adl.org/interfaith/JohnPaul_II_Visit.pdf

Solo

As agendas go, this one seems quite silly. First, Christianity as a new religion was organized around Pauline teachings which had a notoriously tragic view of life (as is) and fantasized a posthumous one in its place based (I believe) on the experience of manic euphoria. So Pauline Christians definitely had no illusions of a kingdom of heaven on earth. Even if the Nazarene church (that Paul argued with) likely believed in the classical messainic kingdom come to earth, it is clear that that it was a recessive belief in the church that gave in wholly to the theology of heavenly redemption for earthly suffering.
Second, the absence of images of crucified Church does not relate to the denial of the cross, but to the interdiction of the second commandment prohibiting making of graven images of God, which the early church strictly observed. There are not only no images of crucified Christ in the first four centuries of Christianity, but any portrait of Christ that would have been sanctioned by the church. Eusebius wrote to the empress Constantia (Constantine's half-sister) who requested an image of Christ, that none exists as no true likeness of Christ could be captured by a painter.

Jiri

spamandham

Given the early 3rd century evidence at Dura-Europos in regards to frescos depicting both Jewish and Christian icons (Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and possibly Mary), I don't think it follows that the early church was concerned with the 2nd commandment. Freedom from the law seems to be central to Paul's message.