Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-26-2009, 06:32 AM

or perhaps this one, portable version:

http://www.bible-history.com/Herod_Antipas/

mikem · 09-26-2009, 09:46 AM

While it is true that the second commandment forbad he making of images, first century Palestine was not culturally homogenous, and Hellenism had made inroads even here. If my memory serves me correctly, both in Sepphoris, and the houses of some of the upper class Jews in Jerusalem, including the priestly caste, cotained decoration featuring animal and human figures.

A friend of mine once gave me several photographs purporting to be pictures of Jesus made from life - one was painted on earthenware and showed a young man with hair just above his shoulders, and parted to the left. This I was told, was the style in which the Essenes wore their hair. Whether this was true or not I have never been able to sustantiate. The other photograph was of a picture in the catacombs at Rome, showing a figure with apparently grey hair, head and beard, celebrating the eucharist. It is a remarkable portrait, whoever it is of. My friend said that it was a portrait of Jesus in middle age, and showed he had survived the crucifixion, but to be honest, I think the ageing effect was probably just caused by the pigment fading. And of course, it was just the painter's impression of what he thought "Jesus" would have looked like. I have been unable to track down which catacomb it comes from however.

Toto · 09-26-2009, 10:36 AM

Here is the archived thread on early Christian art: 7th Century crucifixion iconography - Why so late?

There are examples there of early Christian art.

aa5874 · 09-26-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is a big difference between making a portrait and worshipping the portrait.

Jews did not worship images but what source of antiquity show that Jews were prohibited from making paintings?

Er, the second commandment? Jews felt that a physical representation of a person could ultimately lead to idolatry (much as Muslims do today). Hence it was forbidden to even portray a person.

If Jesus had been anything other than a physical run-of-the-mill Jew, the gospels would probably have said as much. Jesus was turned into a caucasian to make him more palatable to potential European converts. Even today He is still being portrayed as such in the west. Also notice how on crucifixes He is always shown with a loincloth; is this really for the sake of modesty, or so that we won't see that He's circumcised?

Please show me a source of antiquity that states it was prohibited by Jews to paint a picture of someone.

What you say may be plausible but is it really true?

Please, I need to see some source of antiquity that can corroborate or appears to confirm your view.

Paintings of persons can be used as identification not only for worship.

JABcomix · 09-26-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

or perhaps this one, portable version:

http://www.bible-history.com/Herod_Antipas/

Fail. That's Herod Antipas, the Jewish Ruler. He was so full of himself that OF COURSE he's going to have his image on a coin. At least bring up credible art that one would believe could have been made of Jesus. So yeah right, Jesus was going to be put on a coin because WHY?

You sir have FAILED!

JABcomix · 09-26-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by JABcomix

Greek and Roman. They loved their art. They had no quarrel about idolatrous worship. However, Jesus was a Jew. He lived in Jewish communities. He was surrounded by Jewish people. All of whom followed the Jewish religion and it's law. So irrespective of Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian or any other culture's art, Jesus wasn't part of all that. And even if he did visit a Greek town, he never stayed long enough to have a painter paint him or a sculptor sculpt him. The Jewish people simply did not make images of their own. So until you understand that basic concept, any other explanation your '"super" intelligent mind puts forward will be discredited.

fail...

http://www.digital-picture-printing-.../more_info.asp

:wave:

Do you know how long it takes to make one of these ceramic tile images? You're bringing this up as evidence? Really? So somewhere out there a ceramic image of Jesus could exist? Is that your claim?

FAIL :wave:

JABcomix · 09-26-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Paintings of persons can be used as identification not only for worship.

Oh yes, cuz the Roman Guard required everyone to carry a picture ID back then.

Joan of Bark · 09-26-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Er, the second commandment? Jews felt that a physical representation of a person could ultimately lead to idolatry (much as Muslims do today). Hence it was forbidden to even portray a person.

If Jesus had been anything other than a physical run-of-the-mill Jew, the gospels would probably have said as much. Jesus was turned into a caucasian to make him more palatable to potential European converts. Even today He is still being portrayed as such in the west. Also notice how on crucifixes He is always shown with a loincloth; is this really for the sake of modesty, or so that we won't see that He's circumcised?

Please show me a source of antiquity that states it was prohibited by Jews to paint a picture of someone.

What you say may be plausible but is it really true?

Please, I need to see some source of antiquity that can corroborate or appears to confirm your view.

Paintings of persons can be used as identification not only for worship.

I'm going by second-hand analysis from modern Jewish analysts; it was probably Richard Friedman who said that post-Moses Hebrews liked to be careful about breaking any commandment, so they didn't take any chances when it came to physically representing a person. I've read other Jews who've made the same claim, but I don't have the references any more.

The best evidence for all this is that we don't seem to have paintings of any of the Israelites of the NT rendered by Jews. And no, this isn't proof, only evidence.

aa5874 · 09-26-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

The best evidence for all this is that we don't seem to have paintings of any of the Israelites of the NT rendered by Jews. And no, this isn't proof, only evidence.

But, you must admit that no paintings of any Jewish characters of the NT may mean that there were no Jews to paint.

dog-on · 09-27-2009, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JABcomix

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

fail...

http://www.digital-picture-printing-.../more_info.asp

:wave:

Do you know how long it takes to make one of these ceramic tile images? You're bringing this up as evidence? Really? So somewhere out there a ceramic image of Jesus could exist? Is that your claim?

FAIL :wave:

Quote:

The Jewish people simply did not make images of their own.

:wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-26-2009, 06:32 AM	#31
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	or perhaps this one, portable version: http://www.bible-history.com/Herod_Antipas/

09-26-2009, 09:46 AM	#32
mikem Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: UK Posts: 278	While it is true that the second commandment forbad he making of images, first century Palestine was not culturally homogenous, and Hellenism had made inroads even here. If my memory serves me correctly, both in Sepphoris, and the houses of some of the upper class Jews in Jerusalem, including the priestly caste, cotained decoration featuring animal and human figures. A friend of mine once gave me several photographs purporting to be pictures of Jesus made from life - one was painted on earthenware and showed a young man with hair just above his shoulders, and parted to the left. This I was told, was the style in which the Essenes wore their hair. Whether this was true or not I have never been able to sustantiate. The other photograph was of a picture in the catacombs at Rome, showing a figure with apparently grey hair, head and beard, celebrating the eucharist. It is a remarkable portrait, whoever it is of. My friend said that it was a portrait of Jesus in middle age, and showed he had survived the crucifixion, but to be honest, I think the ageing effect was probably just caused by the pigment fading. And of course, it was just the painter's impression of what he thought "Jesus" would have looked like. I have been unable to track down which catacomb it comes from however.

09-26-2009, 10:36 AM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here is the archived thread on early Christian art: 7th Century crucifixion iconography - Why so late? There are examples there of early Christian art.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.